Liberals and Gun Control

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

okboomer wrote:

In some respects, the camel's back is already broken, we are just waiting to see if there is any hope for recovery.

+1 Yet they are still riding that camel into the ground and piling on more straw.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

okboomer wrote:

In some respects, the camel's back is already broken, we are just waiting to see if there is any hope for recovery.

I agree that the camel's back is broken, I do not see a recovery at all, in any form. The Republic is lost, the Constitution is dead.

One party wants the power to do as it wishes no matter the cost, to hell with our liberty. The other wants the samepower, it simply doesn't want to pay as much for it.

 

[eye95]

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

Rather than posting the same tired responses to threads like this - like I normally do, I just want to ask, and I hope people don't freak out that it's off-topic, because I really don't think it is:

Those of you who identify yourselves as conservatives: why are you not libertarians? What is it about conservatism that attracts you so much? With all the damage done in conservatism's name, with all of the interference into peoples lives advocated by the Christian Right, thankfully in decline now with the neoconservatives...

What is it about conservatism that makes it different, for you, than libertarianism?

I think we could avoid having this kind of discussion over and over if we libertarians understood you conservatives better.

I'm not talking about the capital-L Libertarian Party either, just the philosophy of libertarianism and the non-aggression principle: that no individual, mob, or institution, should initiate force against any other individual, mob or institution?

I am what many call a conservative because I believe in limited government and necessary government. Libertarians, as I see it, go too far in the name of Liberty, even restricting the Liberty of those who disagree with them.

For example, Libertarians are pro-abortion, claiming to defend the rights of women, but at the expense of the rights of the babies the women are carrying. Libertarians often claim that rights cannot conflict, that, if they do, then something is not a right. The dilemma presented by an unwanted pregnancy proves that premise to be wrong.

Since rights can conflict, we need laws to protect rights and to clearly draw lines when they conflict.

I disagree with Libertarians on drugs and pornography. The rampant presence of these scourges in our communities conflicts with the rights of parents to raise their children in the moral way they see fit. It is reasonable for communities to choose to restrict them. Libertarians would disagree.

Now, I am a firm believer in Federalism. I don't want to see the federal government making and enforcing rules on drugs and pornography. Local communities have the compelling interest and should take on that role. Such a view promotes Liberty. It allows folks to "vote with their feet," deciding to live where family-friendliness reigns or where carnal desires are more easily fulfilled--as they choose.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Oh, listen to you people!

The Repuclic is not lost, the Constitution is not dead, and as for that camel, binLaden can jst walk everwhere until he croaks of heat exhaustion.

The usurpers of the Statist Left afe in full rout right now, fighting desperate rear-guard actions (such as trying to pass "cap and trade" off as a "Jobs bill" and orchestrating a campaogn of lies against the Tea Parties and talk radio.) Our only disadvantage is that we must take time off from work in order to "peacefully assemble"; and PEACEFULLY assemble we do. We cannot hire and bus in mobs of drug-addled morons, homeless loons and winos to make our ranks look bigger.

These rent-a-mobs shout, curse, bang on bucket-drums and chant that idiotic Hey Hey-Ho Ho crapola while they trash the streets and break windows, all in protest of OUR alleged - but fictitious - "violence".

And the enemies of Liberty themselves have exposed exactly who they are for all Americans to see. And the great majority do not like it one little bit. Mandatory this and that when the Constitution does NOT authorie them to give such orders. Scvholchildren being required to sing the praises of Dear Leader Obama. Installation of "smart" electric meters to monitor your electricity use minute-by-minute and enable someone to send a radio signal to cut down or shut off your power if you are deemed to be using "too much". Not to mention the government takeover of two major auto manufacturers and attempts to take over more. Oh, they thought they had Americans by the tender parts and could do as they pleased. But the wolves threw off their sheep's clothing too soon, and now they are going to pay a terrible price in November.

If you are really all that stirred up, get involved NOW in your Republican primaries to ensure that the Republicans run TRUE conservatives in November. And no matter what, VOTE REPUBLICAN. It is absolutely crucial that the majority be siezed from the DemonRatz,if only to deprive them of powerful Committee chairs and the power of subpoena. The Democrat Party cannot seem to shake the Ratz off, so we shall do it for them.

And after we win, keep after these Republicans. Just voting and then sitting on our collective kiester for two years is what led the Republicans to feel free toabandon the "contract with America" and act like Democrat Lite. Let them know that they will pay in the Primaries if we don't like what they do. Don't threaten them with a Democrat. Threaten them with a Republican.

Join the battle. Go to Blogspot.com and start your own blog, and link up with other bloggers. It's free. Mine is listed in my profile as my home page.

The enemy is desperate. Come mid-September we are probably going to see something very much like the political equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge. Each patriot will then be his own McAuliffe (General, that is, NOT TERRY) at his own Bastogne.And believe me, here in Alexandria VA I am as surrounded and outnumbered as McAuliffe was!)

"Enough is enough"? If what I have put forth here is not the remedy, what is? Armed insurrection? I doubt it would succeed, because you have to be one hell of a lot tougher to do that than to do the simple things I have put forth. The "second revolution" concept would be bloody and horrible, and there are kooks out there who are better armed, better trained, and better prepared than are you and me to fight such a thing should it occur. Go take a look at the National Stormfront website and its attendant orgs, or the NSDAP/AO site. There is also a site called "SolarGeneral" where among other things one can read "the Turner Diaries". These loons are absolutely drooling for the STHTF, and they are SERIOUS.

In short, friends, while it is true that the worst are full of passionate intensity, the best do NOT lack all conviction, at least not me.

How about you?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

oops, double tap of passionate intensity.

 

[steveman01]

imported post

Alex sounds like an NRA fan! Republicans a responsible for just as much usurpation of powers as Dems. We need patriots not Republicans! November, HAH! The government chooses public officials, not the peoples election. The Media (payed for by taxpayers) reports the bureaucrat chosen official, and no onecontests it.You can't trust the media to accurately report the robbery down the street, what makes you thing they can and "elected" official. Research it and you'll find Ron Paul is actually our President. I will NOT be voting Republican!

Furthermore giving a tyrannical member ofcongress the boot is like putting a drug dealer in prison, Another just rises to take there place. The money/immunity is just to good. And after getting the boot they get retirement and benefits, you think they care? HAH...How long will the wait till next "selection" continue?

Most that I talk to say there pastready, but don't want to be a loner. Time for folks to start meeting in the backrooms as did the founders. I don't believe in breaking windows setting cars on fire and all that dumb crap. No one here wants Anarchy, just the closest thing to it, the smallest government possible. I think we should do just as the founders did... Stand your ground. I've had enough of this two step crap, you?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I am what many call a conservative because I believe in limited government and necessary government.  Libertarians, as I see it, go too far in the name of Liberty, even restricting the Liberty of those who disagree with them.

:quirky

For example, Libertarians are pro-abortion, claiming to defend the rights of women, but at the expense of the rights of the babies the women are carrying.  Libertarians often claim that rights cannot conflict, that, if they do, then something is not a right.  The dilemma presented by an unwanted pregnancy proves that premise to be wrong.

:quirky

Since rights can conflict, we need laws to protect rights and to clearly draw lines when they conflict.

I disagree with Libertarians on drugs and pornography.  The rampant presence of these scourges in our communities conflicts with the rights of parents to raise their children in the moral way they see fit.  It is reasonable for communities to choose to restrict them.  Libertarians would disagree.

:quirky

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. President.
Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I disagree with Libertarians on drugs and pornography.  The rampant presence of these scourges in our communities conflicts with the rights of parents to raise their children in the moral way they see fit.  It is reasonable for communities to choose to restrict them.  Libertarians would disagree.

"I disagree with libertarians on guns. The rampant presence of these scourges in our communities conflicts with the rights of parents to raise their children in a gun-violence free community as they see fit. It is reasonable for communities to choose to restrict them. Libertarians would disagree."



To anticipate your response, let me ask you: why is it my right to possess a firearm but not a drug or a porno? And please don't bring up enumeration: even the Constitution itself won't be on your side if you attempt that.



Edit:

eye95 wrote:

For example, Libertarians are pro-abortion, claiming to defend the rights of women, but at the expense of the rights of the babies the women are carrying. Libertarians often claim that rights cannot conflict, that, if they do, then something is not a right. The dilemma presented by an unwanted pregnancy proves that premise to be wrong.

There is no conflict.

The apparent conflict can be resolved in one of two ways: A: the fetus has a right to life; therefore, the mother cannot have a right to abort it. B: the mother has a right to control her body; therefore, the fetus cannot have a right to live until it is viable without its mother's support.

That one of these resolutions may be preferable to one person and the other to a second doesn't change the fact that, once decided, there is no conflict of right.

(Aside: The above argument does demonstrate that there is an intellectual -- and thus potentially relative -- aspect to morality, but it does not preclude a basic and nearly universal biological sense of right and wrong -- the assumption on which the principles of Natural Right and Non-Aggression rely.)

You yourself select one of these resolutions (A). How can you then argue there is a conflict, that in fact both rights exist despite their conflicting nature?

 

[eye95]

imported post

Please don't make my arguments for me. That is an arrogant thing to do. And, you know that I don't tolerate message board game-playing.

Guns serve a purpose for the community and the individual. Pornography and drugs can serve only the individuals wants and desires, but are not beneficial to the community. Furthermore, if you could dig up the Founders and ask them if porn was free speech, you'd repulse them. The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political, religious, and philosophical free speech--not filth.

On the abortion dilemma: For there being no conflict, you laid out two absolutely conflicting points of view. Libertarians tend to take one and conservatives the other. A policy decision has to determine which right takes precedence. I choose life, therefore, I choose against the Libertarians--absolutely and irrevocably.

For maximum Liberty, I would want the States and localities making that policy decision.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I didn't make any arguments for you: I ridiculed the argument you did make.

eye95 wrote:

Guns serve a purpose for the community and the individual.  Pornography and drugs can serve only the individuals wants and desires, but are not beneficial to the community.

So, drugs can't be beneficial to the community? Why are any of them legal, then? Shouldn't we ban prescription drugs because they can be abused, and thus a detriment to the community?

Finally, I dispute your claim that pornography has no value to a community. Pornography provides a non-aggressive avenue to release potentially aggressive sexual desires (like the evolved desire to rape found in a small subset of human males), and there is evidence that the availability of pornography actually correlates with a reduction in sex crimes, rather than an increase.

You just can't see that your positions are entirely based on arbitrary opinion. Pornography is bad for the community! Not a sliver of evidence or reason why.

Marijuana is harmful to the community, even though it has medical uses (thousands of them), but drugs the government says are OK aren't!

Let's get some objectivity in your positions.

You can't just blindly assert that guns are beneficial and pornography is not. There exist arguments that guns are harmful (say in communities afflicted by drug dealing), and that pornography is beneficial.

The proper way to resolve these issues is with an analysis of the aggressive nature of these acts, something you maintain is impossible.

You may own and carry a gun, not because it has been proved that it is "beneficial to the community" (it hasn't been proved, and John Lott's phony statistics don't count, although my opinion is the same as yours in this case), but because it is not an act of aggression for you to do so.

In the words of Jefferson, it "neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my bone" (Jefferson relied on this articulation of the NAP in his defense of freedom of religious belief).

 

[eye95]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I didn't make any arguments for you: I ridiculed the argument you did make.

eye95 wrote:

Guns serve a purpose for the community and the individual. Pornography and drugs can serve only the individuals wants and desires, but are not beneficial to the community.

So, drugs can't be beneficial to the community? Why are any of them legal, then? Shouldn't we ban prescription drugs because they can be abused, and thus a detriment to the community?

I stopped reading at this point. You know what drugs we are talking about. Yet you disingenuously tried to make my point look foolish with a bait and switch. These kinds of underhanded tactics are why I generally avoid debating with you.

I'll try again in a few weeks. Moving on.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I didn't make any arguments for you: I ridiculed the argument you did make.

eye95 wrote:

Guns serve a purpose for the community and the individual. Pornography and drugs can serve only the individuals wants and desires, but are not beneficial to the community.

So, drugs can't be beneficial to the community? Why are any of them legal, then? Shouldn't we ban prescription drugs because they can be abused, and thus a detriment to the community?

FInally, I dispute your claim that pornography has no value to a community. Pornography provides a non-aggressive avenue to release potentially aggressive sexual desires (like the evolved desire to rape found in a small subset of human males), and there is evidence that the availability of pornography actually correlates with a reduction in sex crimes, rather than an increase.

You just can't see that your positions are entirely based on arbitrary opinion. Pornography is bad for the community! Not a sliver of evidence or reason why.

Marijuana is harmful to the community, even though it has medical uses (thousands of them), but drugs the government says are OK aren't!

Let's get some objectivity in your positions.

You can't just blindly assert that guns are beneficial and pornography is not. There exists arguments that guns are harmful, and pornography is beneficial.

The proper way to resolve these issues is with an analysis of the aggressive nature of these acts, something you maintain is impossible.

I do not feel that drugs should be illegal, because like many are aware of, criminalization of drugs makes for a powerful, underground drug trade that leads to extreme violence and greed, which does more harm than good to our communities. However, aside from a personal high that users get from "street drugs" like cocaine, meth, heroin, etc, I do not see any benefits. Same with cigarettes. I'm not one to tell others what they should or should not do in their own home, as long as it's not hurting someone else. That is when it crosses the line. Legal prescription drugs probably kill just as many people as illegal drugs, though.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

I didn't make any arguments for you: I ridiculed the argument you did make.

eye95 wrote:

Guns serve a purpose for the community and the individual.  Pornography and drugs can serve only the individuals wants and desires, but are not beneficial to the community.

So, drugs can't be beneficial to the community? Why are any of them legal, then? Shouldn't we ban prescription drugs because they can be abused, and thus a detriment to the community?

I stopped reading at this point.  You know what drugs we are talking about.  Yet you disingenuously tried to make my point look foolish with a bait and switch.  These kinds of underhanded tactics are why I generally avoid debating with you.

I'll try again in a few weeks.  Moving on.

Please don't be so intellectually dishonest.

I do know what drugs we are talking about.

Drugs like crystal meth (d-methamphetamine), which are incredibly dangerous street drugs. And, yet, which are routinely prescribed legally, and often safety. Is that what you meant by "bait and switch"?

I'm sorry, there is simply no objectivity in your opinion about which drugs are bad, and why. I suspect you have absolutely no personal experience.

I can assert this confidently solely based upon statements like "illegal drugs should be illegal, because they are harmful to the community!"

There is not a shred of objective evidence that meth is less damaging to the community than is, say, marijuana. And yet nobody would argue that people who legitimately use d-methamphetamine are damaging to the community and do not possess a medical right to the drugs they benefit from.

Constantly dipping out of every discussion you can't get the upper hand in is not taking the high road.

You know, I'm not such a bad guy, if you would be willing to actually debate. You act as though we're all in fifth grade and can't risk being blunt for fear of hurting each other's feelings. Case in point: if you read that, you're probably telling yourself "ad hominem!", despite the fact that an analysis of the behavioral trends in a discussion of your opponent can often be logically quite relevant.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

FInally, I dispute your claim that pornography has no value to a community. Pornography provides a non-aggressive avenue to release potentially aggressive sexual desires (like the evolved desire to rape found in a small subset of human males), and there is evidence that the availability of pornography actually correlates with a reduction in sex crimes, rather than an increase.

This statement is untrue. While I don't want to even comment on abortion or the use of drugs one way or the other, I do want to point out that rape is NOT about sex. It is about control or dominance a vast majority of the time.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

I personally don't give a damm what anyone puts in their own body, it's when they attempt to steal from me in order to maintain their habits I have a problem. I don't care if men have sex with each other, and if I was a woman I'd certainly be a lesbian. I'd keep my mouth shut about it though, and not demand everyone accepts it as normal. There would never have been any gay bashing if thegays would've packed a .45.

Babies have a right to live. I can't seeit any other way. Premature births as early as...what? 3 months... have survived. Abortedbabies have survived and had to be killed. this is a disgusting disregard for human life, it has nothing to do with respecting the choice of women.

That said, I don't care if the dependency class aborts itself out of existence. I'm sick of "poor" people who blame everyone else (and capitalism)for their poverty except their own lethargy from smoking an ounce of dope a week. I don't care if these oxygen thieves snort cyanide. We'll clean up the corpses and run our power plants for a few hours. Our "poor"people haven't the slightest idea what real poverty is, just like our"liberals" have no concept what individual liberty really means.

Someties the law just needs to step out of the way and let people fight out their issues on a smaller scale. Instead it seems like we'll have another civil war, I just hope I can afford to get the hell out of here before these primates really %&$ this up.

That is unless Alex is right, and the empire can be saved. I agree with him that we can take and holdthe republicanparty to our agenda of freedom, just like the marxists took control of the democraps. We really do ourselves a huge diservice by marginalising our own arguements in the asinine notion that all parties are the same, lesser of 2 evils, 9/11 truther retards, etc. We can grab this party, crush the marxists, and then hash out our smaller issues like gay marriage, legal dope, etc.

Words mean things and can change. It's no suprise "progressives" ( who are anything but, as their ideas have ALWAYS failed) call themselves liberals. There's nothing liberating about leftist dogma except for the people who rule.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

marshaul wrote:

FInally, I dispute your claim that pornography has no value to a community. Pornography provides a non-aggressive avenue to release potentially aggressive sexual desires (like the evolved desire to rape found in a small subset of human males), and there is evidence that the availability of pornography actually correlates with a reduction in sex crimes, rather than an increase.

This statement is untrue. While I don't want to even comment on abortion or the use of drugs one way or the other, I do want to point out that rape is NOT about sex. It is about control or dominance a vast majority of the time.

I can't even believe someone asserted there was any sort of benefit to society from porn. It's nearly as preposterous as the idea of a Soviet utopia that would have worked if not for the interference of man's natural inclination to enhance his own standard of living. Sure, it provides mental stimulation for people. I've been deployed, I found Maxim magazine. I didn't need the hardcore raunchy stuff thatI will argue (without scientific proof) has caused perversions and created more psycological dysfunction than any "release" it might provide.

I mean it... would be one thing if it was just video of people doing "it", but I think zombie porn, midget porn, and "down on the farm" ( they really exist I'm told) and people doing disgusting things to each other has done no good in society. They might argue in San Fransicko, but that city is a mecca for $h!theads anyway.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

I can't even believe someone asserted there was any sort of benefit to society from porn. It's nearly as preposterous as the idea of a Soviet utopia that would have worked if not for the interference of man's natural inclination to enhance his own standard of living.

There is actually a lot of evidence out there that supports the theory that porn is good. Porn has always been at the forefront of new technologies. In the book "Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market" the author spends 1/3 of the book discussing the VCR and the effect pornography had on the market. Without porn, we might never have adopted VCRs or other formats throughout the years.

Here is some other reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/23/porn.technology/index.html

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v49/no1/johnson.html

Laws were created to keep you from stepping on my toes, and me from stepping on yours. The second you try to regulate my actions or viewing pleasure when I'm not stepping on your toes is the second you've become a traitor to freedom and liberty.

Full disclosure, I'm an anti-abortion, small government libertarian.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

I can't even believe someone asserted there was any sort of benefit to society from porn. It's nearly as preposterous as the idea of a Soviet utopia that would have worked if not for the interference of man's natural inclination to enhance his own standard of living.

There is actually a lot of evidence out there that supports the theory that porn is good.  Porn has always been at the forefront of new technologies.  In the book "Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market" the author spends 1/3 of the book discussing the VCR and the effect pornography had on the market.  Without porn, we might never have adopted VCRs or other formats throughout the years.

Here is some other reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/23/porn.technology/index.html

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v49/no1/johnson.html

Laws were created to keep you from stepping on my toes, and me from stepping on yours.  The second you try to regulate my actions or viewing pleasure when I'm not stepping on your toes is the second you've become a traitor to freedom and liberty.

Full disclosure, I'm an anti-abortion, small government libertarian.

Ooh, that's a really good point. My use of the "reduces the occurrence of sex crimes" argument was intended to make a point more about the debatability of the issue, but the argument you've presented is one I would defend on its own merits.

In fact, you have seriously convinced me that porn is good for the community. It was so blatantly obvious; I wish I had seen it.

Thank you. Your position is now the one I will assume & defend. Far less controversial, or reliant on merely correlative relationships, than the other, much more dubious, proposition. Absolutely excellent.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

This statement is untrue. While I don't want to even comment on abortion or the use of drugs one way or the other, I do want to point out that rape is NOT about sex. It is about control or dominance a vast majority of the time.

Depends how you define "sex", doesn't it? I could just as easily argue that rape *is* sex, or a form of it, albeit a brutal and aggressive form.

Anyway, there is little doubt that there exists a drive to it in some subset of the male population. There is also little doubt that the drive exists for evolutionary reasons; rape has just enough procreative potential to ensure its evolutionary success (this is an excellent reason to argue that firearms benefit the community, BTW. Evolution in action, selecting against the "rape gene").

I didn't need the hardcore raunchy stuff thatI will argue (without scientific proof) has caused perversions and created more psycological dysfunction than any "release" it might provide.

Define "raunchy". Or even "hardcore" for that matter. One man's harmless sex act is another man's disgusting perversion. Unless the sole purpose of sex is procreation, it seems quite arbitrary to decide that one porn is "perverted" while another is not, so long as no aggression occurs during its production or distribution. Once you accept that sex can exist beyond procreation, where is the line drawn? Clearly, you find midgets perverted. What about merely small people? Is it perverted when a woman is with two or more men? What about homosexuals? etc etc etc


Can you suggest a mechanism by which porn might "create psychological disfunction"?

I've seen just about every kind of (legal) porn imaginable, and just about everything else you can imagine. Despite what the "media causes evil and mental disorder!" people would suggest, I would argue that I am psychologically and emotionally quite healthy and stable. I suppose you can judge for yourself.

I mean it... would be one thing if it was just video of people doing "it", but I think zombie porn, midget porn, and "down on the farm" ( they really exist I'm told) and people doing disgusting things to each other has done no good in society. They might argue in San Fransicko, but that city is a mecca for $h!theads anyway.

Thanks for the implication.

Anyway, can you prove that people engaged in "the pursuit of happiness" doesn't in an of itself do good for society? It is, after all, the object of liberty and the American dream.