Opinion about gun control?

[TheKhoz]

When I said government was bad, I mean this country's government. Thomas Jefferson wrote the rules of our government but our current system is far from his utopian wishes. It's people like you who say yes to everything, approving of most anything the government does, because you can't stand up for your own constitutional rights if they are being infringed upon.

Ah, see. That's not anarchy. But I was under the impression that you meant all government.

But I don't agree with every right in the constitution. Just because some guy 250 years ago thought that loving gunhead Joe next door should have his automatic assault rifle, I don't agree.

Traumatizing a child is a violation of their personal liberties.

But I convinced them to agree with it. So if they agree, and I agree, what's the problem? Just because they look back on it with regret, that's not my fault.

Correction: Citizens aren't forced to pay fees to third parties.

No one wants to loving pay taxes.

[Ad Bot]

[Trinick!]

But I don't agree with every right in the constitution. Just because some guy 250 years ago thought that loving gunhead Joe next door should have his automatic assault rifle, I don't agree.

Automatic assault rifles did not exist 250 years ago.

But I convinced them to agree with it. So if they agree, and I agree, what's the problem? Just because they look back on it with regret, that's not my fault.

Exactly.

No one want to loving pay taxes.

So that's why libertarianism is good? You only pay for services you use.

[TheKhoz]

Automatic assault rifles did not exist 250 years ago.

Yes I know that. But I was drawing a connection between the laws written down then and the way they are used now.

So that's why libertarianism is good? You only pay for services you use.

Who's going to enforce the taxes? Corporations! But, who's going to regulate them? Corporations!

You're still stuck in the same corporate stuffhole that you started with.

[Trinick!]

Yes I know that. But I was drawing a connection between the laws written down then and the way they are used now.

No, you were making a dumb comment.

Who's going to enforce the taxes? Corporations! But, who's going to regulate them? Corporations!

There are no taxes to enforce...

[rockslide26]

Ah, see. That's not anarchy. But I was under the impression that you meant all government.

(1)But I don't agree with every right in the constitution. Just because some guy 250 years ago thought that loving gunhead Joe next door should have his automatic assault rifle, I don't agree.

(2)No one wants to loving pay taxes.

I've labeled your points for more clear reference here. As I've said before, the beauty of being able to own firearms in this country, as perfectly stated by Thomas Jefferson is as follows; "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." We will never need to use our weapons against a government until they start taking away rights from the people. As citizens of this country it is our right as intended by the founding fathers to have the means to rebel and establish a society we see as being more fit.

How this relates to Point 1 of your statement is that, no, guns are not necessary for us to own as citizens. What is important is that we protect our right to do so, because weapons are what will make government fear its people and therefore secure liberty. We don't need guns until our liberty is threatened, but it is a right to have them regardless.

Looking at Point 2, if a service is necessary for a group of people, they for the most part are going to pay in some way to ensure its survival. If we needed fire to cook our food and we each had four logs to contribute to the fire, it doesn't matter if you don't want to give your logs because unless you give them to the fire, nobody gets to cook their food and we all eat raw food and become ill from it. Now you're thinking "ohoho, but what if I don't want to give you my logs?" If you don't want to give your logs over, then the fire will die and you will lose that privilege along with everyone else, and you will suffer along with everybody else, and now your logs are worthless to you because you can't eat wood.

[TheKhoz]

No, you were making a dumb comment.
There are no taxes to enforce...

No, you were making a dumb comment.

No, I was not. Why do you insist that everyone that does not share your political viewpoint, doesn't have a basic understanding of history. We are having an intellectual conversation, we are not being condescending pricks.

There are no taxes to enforce...

So who pays for the services? Your comments are currently going in a circle, so I'm going to respond to rockslide:

How this relates to Point 1 of your statement is that, no, guns are not necessary for us to own as citizens. What is important is that we protect our right to do so, because weapons are what will make government fear its people and therefore secure liberty. We don't need guns until our liberty is threatened, but it is a right to have them regardless.

But I don't want the guy next to me to have a quick and easy way to kill me. It is within my personal freedoms to fear for my life.

Looking at Point 2, if a service is necessary for a group of people, they for the most part are going to pay in some way to ensure its survival. If we needed fire to cook our food and we each had four logs to contribute to the fire, it doesn't matter if you don't want to give your logs because unless you give them to the fire, nobody gets to cook their food and we all eat raw food and become ill from it. Now you're thinking "ohoho, but what if I don't want to give you my logs?" If you don't want to give your logs over, then the fire will die and you will lose that privilege along with everyone else, and you will suffer along with everybody else, and now your logs are worthless to you because you can't eat wood.

Right, but what if there is a third person. He has gold.

That means that he doesn't get to eat because we were too loving selfish. But, what if each person donated half of their resources to the "pot" (Like in poker)

But, we need someone to fairly distribute these resources, so that we don't have selfish starfishs.

And that's a government. But, what if our single man is too selfish himself? So let's get a few more. Infact, let's ask the entire tribe who they would prefer. Now we have voting! But we need more than one person to choose how the resources are divided, right?

So you are the guy with gold. You are thankful that these people see rationality. (people on welfare)

But I am the guy with the fish, or the guy with the logs. I say we loving drown that greedy motherforgeter and toss his body in a ditch.

[Sami2ss]

I haven't read the thread, but I live in one of strictest places for guns, New York. Now, I'm not even sure about the laws, which is kind of dumb on my part, since I should be an informed citizen, but I've heard it is really strict here, weapon laws in general.

When I get older, I'd really like to buy guns, just because they seem cool, and it'd be fun to shoot off guns. :l

[rockslide26]

But I don't want the guy next to me to have a quick and easy way to kill me. It is within my personal freedoms to fear for my life.
Right, but what if there is a third person. He has gold.

That means that he doesn't get to eat because we were too loving selfish. But, what if each person donated half of their resources to the "pot" (Like in poker)

But, we need someone to fairly distribute these resources, so that we don't have selfish starfishs.

And that's a government. But, what if our single man is too selfish himself? So let's get a few more. Infact, let's ask the entire tribe who they would prefer. Now we have voting! But we need more than one person to choose how the resources are divided, right?

So you are the guy with gold. You are thankful that these people see rationality. (people on welfare)

But I am the guy with the fish, or the guy with the logs. I say we loving drown that greedy motherforgeter and toss his body in a ditch.

Libertarianism calls for minimal government, with individuals managing and allocating their own resources where they see fit. I don't think you know what libertarians stand for, to be honest.
The right to own a gun defends us from our government as it was intended. If you'd like to suggest an equally powerful alternative, be my guest.

[TheKhoz]

Libertarianism calls for minimal government, with individuals managing and allocating their own resources where they see fit. I don't think you know what libertarians stand for, to be honest.

Then please, lay it out for me.

The right to own a gun defends us from our government as it was intended. If you'd like to suggest an equally powerful alternative, be my guest.

But it also puts me at risk. So that's infringing on the personal rights that libertarians seem love so much.

[rockslide26]

(1)Then please, lay it out for me.

(2)But it also puts me at risk. So that's infringing on the personal rights that libertarians seem love so much.

To address 1;
Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Now, onto 2. You're not being put at risk by your neighbor owning a gun in any way. If he begins to threaten to kill you with said weapon, he is infringing on your rights, but if he is doing nothing aggressive towards anyone else, then he is not infringing on any right whatsoever.

[TheKhoz]

Now, onto 2. You're not being put at risk by your neighbor owning a gun in any way. If he begins to threaten to kill you with said weapon, he is infringing on your rights, but if he is doing nothing aggressive towards anyone else, then he is not infringing on any right whatsoever.

But he has the power to kill me. I don't want him to have that power. Do you want everyone around you to have the power to kill you.

Now, I suppose they do always, but don't you want to make it as difficult as possible?

To address 1;
Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Every single thing that you do effects other people. For instance, say you want to smoke a forget ton of cigarretes. Then you get lung cancer and die. You have infringed on the right of your family to spend time with you, in an unfair manner.

[Wynd_Fox]

Is it me, or is Pi being difficult purposely?

[devildogelite]

Everyone who says it would stop bank robberies or whatever, is killing a person really worth saving something that's insured and can be replaced. If you're not in danger of being harmed there is absolutely no reason to kill somebody.

Gun control isn't going to stop school shootings, these people already decided to kill people. They know they're going to die so they're still gonna try to kill as many people as possible. If they can't get a gun they'll use something else, a bomb, knives, driving into a crowd of people.

This term "assault weapon" means absolutely nothing. The guy at the last school shooting used a ar-15, that's a normal semi automatic rifle that just looks scary. Assault weapon is just thrown around to scare people, it means absolutely nothing at all.

[Trinick!]

No, I was not. Why do you insist that everyone that does not share your political viewpoint, doesn't have a basic understanding of history. We are having an intellectual conversation, we are not being condescending pricks.

I didn't say your political view was dumb, I said your statement that a 250 year old document consciously supports something that did not exist yet is dumb.

So who pays for the services? Your comments are currently going in a circle, so I'm going to respond to rockslide

The people? My comments are not going in a circle. If there are no government controlled services, companies will take over the services. People then pay the companies to provide these services. No taxes involved.

[TheKhoz]

I said your statement that a 250 year old document consciously supports something that did not exist yet is dumb.

I didn't say that the constitution supported the use of automatic weapons, I said it allowed the use of automatic weapons.

I didn't say your political view was dumb

I never said you did. I said that it seems to me that because I don't share your political viewpoint, you think that I am dumb.