[Scrybe]

I'm a geolibertarian and I am pretty much in line with the principles espoused by the Democratic Freedom Caucus (a geolibertarian faction of the Democratic Party) and I am in agreement with most of what they promote, but I'd like to know the range of possibilities that a libertarian can stand on gun control.

Can you be a libertarian and support some safety regulations for both obtaining firearms and for storing them in your own house?

[MememyselfandIJK]

I am Libertarian socialist and I support some basic regulations on guns to promote safety and decrease gun violence.

[47 Knucklehead]

I'm a right leaning libertarian and I don't think that there should be any REQUIREMENT to have access to a Consitutional Right. I think it's a damn good idea and have taken many safety courses of various types over the years.

Requiring a course, especially one that you have to pay out of pocket for, is about the same sort of afront to my libertarianism as having to take a test to have a baby, take a test to vote, take a test to worship what ever God you want, take a test before you can exercise your right to free speech, etc.

As a gun owner, it really pisses me off to no end that I have to not only show ID to get a gun, but in my draconian liberal state, I have to pay for the background check to boot. And when I want to get one of my really fun toys (ie a Title II weapon ... supressor or fully automatic) I have to go through basically a 6 month waiting period ... even though I already have multiple of each ... pay $200 for a "tax stamp", and pay for the passport photo, finger printing service, multiple copies, registered mail to multiple local, state, and federal agencies ... which usually works out to be about $175 more ... and yest liberals throw a hissy fit about having to show a photo ID to vote, even though every state that passes a voter ID law, will provide you a FREE photo ID if you don't already have one.

As far as a "safety course to reduce gun violence", sorry, many cities and states flat out ban certain guns, and murder is illegal everywhere, and yet there is still gun violence. Having to take a course, even a free one, won't change that.

[mikema63]

Good God, people expect it to be somewhat difficult to aquire an extremely dangerous weapon that is designed to kill things?!?!

What next? Will they arrest you for making explosives out of fertilizer?!?!

[Saeko]

I'm a right leaning libertarian and I don't think that there should be any REQUIREMENT to have access to a Consitutional Right.

What about the requirement that one not be a traitor?

Requiring a course, especially one that you have to pay out of pocket for, is about the same sort of afront to my libertarianism as having to take a test to have a baby, take a test to vote, take a test to worship what ever God you want, take a test before you can exercise your right to free speech, etc.

That's nice but these situations are not equivalent to gun ownership. You can kill someone with a gun. You really can't do that using a baby, a vote, a prayer, etc.

As a gun owner, it really pisses me off to no end that I have to not only show ID to get a gun, but in my draconian liberal state, I have to pay for the background check to boot. And when I want to get one of my really fun toys (ie a Title II weapon ... supressor or fully automatic) I have to go through basically a 6 month waiting period ... even though I already have multiple of each ... pay $200 for a "tax stamp", and pay for the passport photo, finger printing service, multiple copies, registered mail to multiple local, state, and federal agencies ... which usually works out to be about $175 more ... and yest liberals throw a hissy fit about having to show a photo ID to vote, even though every state that passes a voter ID law, will provide you a FREE photo ID if you don't already have one.

It sucks having to pay for things. It's a good thing you're a libertarian.

As far as a "safety course to reduce gun violence", sorry, many cities and states flat out ban certain guns, and murder is illegal everywhere, and yet there is still gun violence. Having to take a course, even a free one, won't change that.

Have you thought about legalizing murder?

[Decky]

The state should provide weapons free of charge to all workers and prove shooting lessons from the age of 15. Bourgeois filth should of course be disarmed and hunted like foxes.

[47 Knucklehead]

What about the requirement that one not be a traitor?

That's nice but these situations are not equivalent to gun ownership. You can kill someone with a gun. You really can't do that using a baby, a vote, a prayer, etc.

It sucks having to pay for things. It's a good thing you're a libertarian.

Have you thought about legalizing murder?

Is there a requirement not to be a traitor for other RIGHTS? Or should you have to prove you are before you vote, have children, go to church, to keep out troops being garrisoned in your home, etc?

You can kill people with your bare hands. You can inspire others to kill with your words. Religion can be used to inspire others to kill. Etc. I do consider them parallels.

I'm not against paying for things, I do it all the time. I am just largely against paying for other peoples luxury items. Why should I have to pay for someone elses healthcare when they are going out every year and getting the newest iPhone and a new 4K TV and a new $25,000 Honda Accord? Government is needed for BASIC things ... national defense, roads, a post office, etc. ... you know, all the things that are SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the Constitution. Think we need something else, like NASA? There is a process to ADD to the Constitution ... use it. It was designed to be hard to do for a reason, so that trivial shit wouldn't change things, only things that are of a major and overwhelming concern will change it.

Hate to say it, but only an idiot would legalize murder. So no, I haven't given it much thought, other then when I'm watching "The Purge" for giggles.

[Saeko]

Is there a requirement not to be a traitor for other RIGHTS? Or should you have to prove you are before you vote, have children, go to church, to keep out troops being garrisoned in your home, etc?

Generally yes. Known traitors are given almost no rights whatsoever. But this question is a dodge. Are you seriously saying that traitors, known terrorists, convicted felons, etc., should still be allowed to own guns?

You can kill people with your bare hands. You can inspire others to kill with your words. Religion can be used to inspire others to kill. Etc. I do consider them parallels.

Can you kill someone with your bare hands, words, and religion as easily as you can with a gun?

Do you have to purchase your own hands, words, baby, or religion?

I'm not against paying for things, I do it all the time. I am just largely against paying for other peoples luxury items. Why should I have to pay for someone elses healthcare when they are going out every year and getting the newest iPhone and a new 4K TV and a new $25,000 Honda Accord? Government is needed for BASIC things ... national defense, roads, a post office, etc. ... you know, all the things that are SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the Constitution. Think we need something else, like NASA? There is a process to ADD to the Constitution ... use it. It was designed to be hard to do for a reason, so that trivial shit wouldn't change things, only things that are of a major and overwhelming concern will change it.

I don't see how your own gun license qualifies as someone else's "luxury item".

[47 Knucklehead]

Generally yes. Known traitors are given almost no rights whatsoever. But this question is a dodge. Are you seriously saying that traitors, known terrorists, convicted felons, etc., should still be allowed to own guns?

Can you kill someone with your bare hands, words, and religion as easily as you can with a gun?

Do you have to purchase your own hands, words, baby, or religion?

I don't see how your own gun license qualifies as someone else's "luxury item".

Yes. When you are done with prison, ALL your rights should be fully restored. If you are too dangerous to rejoin society and have your rights restored, then maybe you should still be in prison. That goes for traitors (who I think should be executed in most cases), murderers, rapists, etc.

As easily? No, but that isn't the point. I can kill people with a knife, baseball bat, or a U Haul rental truck pretty easily too. So are you saying that we should have waiting periods, background checks, and other measures to prevent people from using those inannimate objects as weapons too? Since people use bombs to kill people, maybe we should outlaw bombs or at least require a background check for them. Hey, maybe to combat drug overdoses, we should make heroine illegal. Point being, my right to keep and bear arms, in the grand scheme of things, is no less deadly than voting for the wrong president who has nuclear weapons at his disposal.

No, I don't have to purchase those things, but you are missing the point. Are you saying that a Constitutional Right doesn't apply if it requires a thing? So you are perfectly acceptable with placing a 6 month waiting period and a $200 tax stamp and a background check just to buy a Bible or a copy of "Animal Farm" or a pen or a printing press or a computer with internet access to a chat board? That's silly. And speaking of silly, let's talk about the fact that in many places, I have to wait a week or more just because I want to buy an AR-15 or a pistol ... even though I already have about 15 pisols and multiple semi-automatic (not to mention fully automatic weapons). This is a "cooling off period" or so the bullshit lie say. Like if I was going to go nuts and want to kill someone, I'd go out and buy a new gun, as opposed to just go into one of my gun safes and get one I already own.

My gun license isn't a "luxury item", it's an infringement to a right. A gun is a THING, just like a Bible or a book. A thing that is Constitutionally protected to have. Why are you afraid of a thing? My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

[Saeko]

Yes. When you are done with prison, ALL your rights should be fully restored. If you are too dangerous to rejoin society and have your rights restored, then maybe you should still be in prison. That goes for traitors (who I think should be executed in most cases), murderers, rapists, etc.

So you believe that the state is allowed to hold you in prison indefinitely so long as it considers you a threat to public safety, but it can't bar you from owning a gun for the same reason?

As easily? No, but that isn't the point. I can kill people with a knife, baseball bat, or a U Haul rental truck pretty easily too. So are you saying that we should have waiting periods, background checks, and other measures to prevent people from using those inannimate objects as weapons too? Since people use bombs to kill people, maybe we should outlaw bombs or at least require a background check for them. Hey, maybe to combat drug overdoses, we should make heroine illegal. Point being, my right to keep and bear arms, in the grand scheme of things, is no less deadly than voting for the wrong president who has nuclear weapons at his disposal.

No, I don't have to purchase those things, but you are missing the point. Are you saying that a Constitutional Right doesn't apply if it requires a thing? So you are perfectly acceptable with placing a 6 month waiting period and a $200 tax stamp and a background check just to buy a Bible or a copy of "Animal Farm" or a pen or a printing press or a computer with internet access to a chat board? That's silly. And speaking of silly, let's talk about the fact that in many places, I have to wait a week or more just because I want to buy an AR-15 or a pistol ... even though I already have about 15 pisols and multiple semi-automatic (not to mention fully automatic weapons). This is a "cooling off period" or so the bullshit lie say. Like if I was going to go nuts and want to kill someone, I'd go out and buy a new gun, as opposed to just go into one of my gun safes and get one I already own.

1. So the thing that makes all those situations equivalent is that you can use the items in question to kill someone? Do you believe that people should be allowed to own nukes as well?

2. Saying that "x should not be a right" is not the same as "x is a right but can be regulated" is not the same as "x should be regulated/banned".

My gun license isn't a "luxury item", it's an infringement to a right. A gun is a THING, just like a Bible or a book. A thing that is Constitutionally protected to have. Why are you afraid of a thing? My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Then why are you complaining about having to pay for it?

[47 Knucklehead]

So you believe that the state is allowed to hold you in prison indefinitely so long as it considers you a threat to public safety, but it can't bar you from owning a gun for the same reason?

1. So the thing that makes all those situations equivalent is that you can use the items in question to kill someone? Do you believe that people should be allowed to own nukes as well?

2. Saying that "x should not be a right" is not the same as "x is a right but can be regulated" is not the same as "x should be regulated/banned".

Then why are you complaining about having to pay for it?

So you think that the state can punish you for the rest of your life by taking away your right to vote and own a gun just because you got busted for smoking a joint? I think I was pretty clear on my stance ... once you are out of prison, your rights should be FULLY restored.

Straw man argument. I love it when people compare owning a rifle to owning a nuclear weapon. I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense.

Don't like it, then change the Constitution and remove the 2nd Amendment. There is a process for that. Until such time as you do, I don't really care if you think that people sould or shouldn't own guns. They can. Anyone who says otherwise to me is an enemy of the state and should be put on trial for treason. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Why should I have to pay to exercise my right to keep and bear arms when liberals constantly complain about having to NOT pay for their right (ie a photo ID to vote)?

[Saeko]

So you think that the state can punish you for the rest of your life by taking away your right to vote and own a gun just because you got busted for smoking a joint? I think I was pretty clear on my stance ... once you are out of prison, your rights should be FULLY restored.

Yes, I do. But that's beside the point, and you've once again dodged the question.

You said that the state should not release you from prison if it considers you a danger to public safety. Do you agree with that or no? It seems that you do, and so, I ask, why can it not, by the same reasoning, take away some of your rights?

Straw man argument. I love it when people compare owning a rifle to owning a nuclear weapon. I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense.

It's not a straw man argument. You maintain that gun ownership is equivalent to baseball bat ownership because they can both be used to kill people. Well nukes can be used to kill people. Why are nukes not equivalent to gun ownership, then? If you prefer to cover your ears and bury your head in the sand, maybe this forum isn't for you. I suggest you go to tumblr.

Don't like it, then change the Constitution and remove the 2nd Amendment. There is a process for that. Until such time as you do, I don't really care if you think that people sould or shouldn't own guns. They can. Anyone who says otherwise to me is an enemy of the state and should be put on trial for treason. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I never disagreed with the claim that people can own guns. My only claim is that that right can and should be regulated and can be entirely removed in certain cases. The same is true of every single constitutionally guaranteed right.

Why should I have to pay to exercise my right to keep and bear arms when liberals constantly complain about having to NOT pay for their right (ie a photo ID to vote)?

Someone has to pay the administrative fees. A photo ID is a necessity, a gun is not.

[Finfinder]

Good God, people expect it to be somewhat difficult to aquire an extremely dangerous weapon that is designed to kill things?!?!

What next? Will they arrest you for making explosives out of fertilizer?!?!

I think that's part of the problem whats next? You know "they" will not stop or be satisfied with "reasonable" gun laws.

[mikema63]

They are out to get you, they are everywhere. They are listening to our brain waves. I use a tinfoil hat but I think they might have figured out a way around that.

[Finfinder]

They are out to get you, they are everywhere. They are listening to our brain waves. I use a tinfoil hat but I think they might have figured out a way around that.

I can see that lol....................I'll play, what exactly is a reasonable gun law. The end game for your ilk is to outlaw them isn't it? Also a mental health test.

[mikema63]

No I don't want to ban all guns. Since you just posted that "they" are out to do so and are just lying I doubt you will believe me.

[47 Knucklehead]

Yes, I do. But that's beside the point, and you've once again dodged the question.

You said that the state should not release you from prison if it considers you a danger to public safety. Do you agree with that or no? It seems that you do, and so, I ask, why can it not, by the same reasoning, take away some of your rights?

It's not a straw man argument. You maintain that gun ownership is equivalent to baseball bat ownership because they can both be used to kill people. Well nukes can be used to kill people. Why are nukes not equivalent to gun ownership, then? If you prefer to cover your ears and bury your head in the sand, maybe this forum isn't for you. I suggest you go to tumblr.

I never disagreed with the claim that people can own guns. My only claim is that that right can and should be regulated and can be entirely removed in certain cases. The same is true of every single constitutionally guaranteed right.

Someone has to pay the administrative fees. A photo ID is a necessity, a gun is not.

I didn't dodge the question. I clearly said what I meant in my initial statement. If you are put in prison for a crime, when you are let out, ALL your rights are fully restored. IF you are too much of a danger to society to get all your rights out, then maybe you shouldn't be let out. How is there any ambiguity there?

I maintain that gun ownership is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and without due process can not be denied or as the wording of the Constitution says "shall not be infringed". Again, I think it is you who are having issue with reading comprehension. The whole side discussion about baseball bats was just my attempt to draw a parallel. Maybe I shouldn't confuse the issue here and just say "Owning a gun is a Constitutional RIGHT, don't like it? Change the Constitution!"

So you want to regulate a right that "shall not be infringed" ... how nice for you. What other RIGHTS to you want to mess with? Shall I mess with a womans right to vote or a black persons right to vote? Or maybe make it so that you have to pass a test and have a background check if you want to be a Muslim and worship your God the way you want? Getting my point now?

There shouldn't BE any "administrative fees" that is an infringement, which we have already covered a million times over. Also, as I've said many times, in every single state where a photo ID is required to vote, if you don't already have one, then a voter ID card is issued to you FREE ... and people STILL whine and complain that is a violation of their right to vote and disenfranchises people. Running an election costs money ... all those people working there, the places have to be open, electricity, paper ballors, machines, etc. Why can't we have a "Poll tax" to try to pay for those "Administrative fees" you talk about? Oh yeah, the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. Why can't liberals see that the same thing happens with gun ownership.

[47 Knucklehead]

I think that's part of the problem whats next? You know "they" will not stop or be satisfied with "reasonable" gun laws.

Exactly. Just like the anti-smoking crew did with smoking.

First it was signs. Then it was smoking sections. Then it was seperate air handling systems. Then it was no smoking indoors. Then it was no smoking within 20 feet of a building. Then it was no smoking pretty much anywhere in your home. And in some counties now, you can't even smoke at home if you live in an apartment.

Creaping regulations.


At what point do people just say "Fuck it, we tried being sensible, fuck it, I want my FULL RIGHT back, fuck being sensible!" ??

[AFAIK]

@47 Knucklehead
Are you opposed to parole and probation? It sounds like you believe the only punishment the gov't should utilise is prison and nothing else.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

[47 Knucklehead]

@47 Knucklehead
Are you opposed to parole and probation? It sounds like you believe the only punishment the gov't should utilise is prison and nothing else.


What part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

Correct. I don't believe in parole. In very special cases, I would be willing to entertain probation (before judgement). To me, prison is about punishment.

"What part of "well regulated" don't you understand?" ... None of it, I understand it fully. Both from a founding fathers perspective (ie The Federalist Papers), from the Supreme Court point of view, as well as from an English language structure point of view ... which clearly states that the "well regulated" part applies to "The Militia", not "The People" part.

Or put another way ...