Gun regulations and libertarianism - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14880442
Well, if everyone’s only criticism is that they do not like my terminology, then I guess they have no problem with my actual argument.

My argument, for those who think I have none, is that we need guns that are as powerful as the government’s gun if we are going to provide a check to government tyranny.

FYI: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mbers.html
#14880449
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, if everyone’s only criticism is that they do not like my terminology, then I guess they have no problem with my actual argument.


You didn't provide any actual argument. You can't expect other people to try to decipher what your argument might be.

My argument, for those who think I have none, is that we need guns that are as powerful as the government’s gun if we are going to provide a check to government tyranny.


The whole point of having democratic and republican institutions is to not need a "balance" of guns. I put balance in quotes because the result of arming everyone is anarchy, not a peaceful society.
#14880450
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, if everyone’s only criticism is that they do not like my terminology, then I guess they have no problem with my actual argument.

My argument, for those who think I have none, is that we need guns that are as powerful as the government’s gun if we are going to provide a check to government tyranny.

FYI: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... mbers.html


Dunno, those insurgents in the middle east are doing a decent job of staving off large governments without smart bombs and shit.
#14880452
@Saeko
Yes, the guns are for those situations where democratic institutions have failed. That does not contradict my argument in any way.

-----------

@Rancid

Insurgents in the ME are not actually safeguarding democracy from government tyranny.
#14880453
Dunno, those insurgents in the middle east are doing a decent job of staving off large governments without smart bombs and shit.


No they aren't. Wherever they face a determined and well equipped enemy they fold like ISIS did.

There are no examples of an enemy facing the full brunt of the US Army since gulf war one where we rolled up an army 1/2 million strong, with modern equipment and the home court advantage in a few weeks.

Remember. This despotic army that would cause us to take to arms does not have to worry about any rules. The world has not seen anything like it since Nanking.

The very idea that some home-grown militia could stop a modern army set on its destruction and not overly concerned with world opinion is a joke. It is a pipe dream for stupid people. Clearly our libertarian friend has no earthly idea the resources available to the US military. Few in the world do. None have seen it first hand.
#14880460
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Saeko
Yes, the guns are for those situations where democratic institutions have failed. That does not contradict my argument in any way.


What exactly do you mean when you say that democratic institutions have "failed"?
#14880614
Saeko wrote:What exactly do you mean when you say that democratic institutions have "failed"?


Democracies have institutions that are designed to hold the government accountable to the populace. Voting is the clearest example of this, but there are other examples such as the division of powers, checks and balances, etc.

If they fail and do not work as designed, then these institutions cannot hold the government accountable. This would then create a situation of potnetial tyranny.

In order to safeguard against said tyranny, the populace must access other methods of holding government accountable. These other methods include armed rebellion. In order for armed rebellion to be a real and direct threat, there must not be a radical difference in the military capabilities of the two sides.
#14880756
annatar1914 wrote:Collapses are never pretty, and when America implodes, the world order it maintains is also going to collapse. We're in fact seeing this now. In the time of the coming resource wars and ''Peak Oil'', arms for personal defense is not a bad idea.

These, I would say are very US-American ideas, based probably on a very special north American history.
The US notion about common citizens armaments is almost unique on the globe, spare of those countries which are vastly pre modern.
The perception America equals US, that´s a widely used language, is as dubious as common.
And of course, "when America implodes, the world order it maintains is also going to collapse."
But @annatar1914 , does "America", which better should be called US, still maintain the "world order".
If still so, that dominance is already and further foreseeable waning.

What will persist, is a fundamental constitutional right (second amendment) to own and carry weapons. Granted at a time when neither smokeless powder was invented, nor automatic weapons.
Latter can kill in a second more human fellow citizens, than the arms in the times of the founding fathers within half an hour.
So, what could have made sound sense at the end of the 18th century, could also easily turn now into a mortal trap today.
I am very happy to live in a Europe, where citizens do not carry death in the pockets in their pants, cars or homes.
Russia was befallen by civil war, so was Spain, and in short time before the Balkans.
Let us hope my truly beloved US will never experience such atrocities.
But if, they will be stuffed up with weaponry in a scale never seen before.
#14902505
47 Knucklehead wrote: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.



I'm new to this forum but the above quote is right on the money, imo.

I believe we have surrendered too many rights especially the last 100 yrs, and it's usually in the name of safety or security.
My 13 yr old daughter ask me the other day..." daddy, don't people understand that criminals don't care what the law says".

She was referring to the subject of gun control.

I understand why people have some of the opinions they have when it comes to gun control, but I see no sense in passing laws that are only a farce and do nothing to prevent crime in the real world.

To give up some of our freedoms because of what some people do or may do is no excuse.
#14902514
Drlee wrote:No they aren't. Wherever they face a determined and well equipped enemy they fold like ISIS did.


Isis was trying to hold territory, it wasn't an insurgency. You can't fight an insurgency the way the they fought ISIS. The group is going back to an insurgency now that its rogue state has been defeated.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2 ... derground/
#14902522
Pants-of-dog wrote:In order to safeguard against said tyranny, the populace must access other methods of holding government accountable. These other methods include armed rebellion. In order for armed rebellion to be a real and direct threat, there must not be a radical difference in the military capabilities of the two sides.


That's not really true. Government can have superior war fighting capability but f it doesn't have popular support then it's ultimately fucked. Insurgencies are about hearts and minds, not firepower.
#14902527
Sivad wrote:Insurgencies are about hearts and minds, not firepower.


This is true ... Only, _successful_ insurgencies are about firepower. Do you like to lose?

Zam
#14902529
ACH wrote:To give up some of our freedoms because of what some people do or may do is no excuse.


I'd support background checks and other reasonable controls if I thought it would end there, but we all know they're not going to stop until they have all the guns. So we can't give them an inch. If they would just be reasonable and acknowledge that guns do in fact deter tyranny or even that the threat of tyranny is a real concern then maybe we could begin a discussion. But if they're not going to be honest or reasonable then we just have fight them tooth and nail on every little reform they propose.
#14902537
Sivad wrote:That's not really true. Government can have superior war fighting capability but f it doesn't have popular support then it's ultimately fucked. Insurgencies are about hearts and minds, not firepower.


Can you give an example of when a popular, but vastly underpowered, insurgency was able to take down a dictatorship?
#14902550
Sivad wrote:Insurgencies are about hearts and minds, not firepower.


Sorry, no. Insurgencies are about bleeding your enemy. If they can do enough of this, they will gain firepower and acquire force multipliers. When the balance tips in their favor they can win. I can't think of one insurgency that WON while their adversary retained superior, effective, firepower ... can you?

Hearts and minds do translate into firepower and are a significant force multiplier ... that's how Castro took Cuba. But that didn't happen because people sat around and thought good thoughts.

Zam
#14902564
Drlee wrote:The very idea that some home-grown militia could stop a modern army set on its destruction and not overly concerned with world opinion is a joke. It is a pipe dream for stupid people. Clearly our libertarian friend has no earthly idea the resources available to the US military. Few in the world do. None have seen it first hand.

Well I'm definitely one of the more intelligent people and most certainly Libertarians often say stupid and dumb things. But this extreme scenario misses the point of an armed citizenry. The American rebels were completely incapable of defeating Britain on their own. They only won with massive, massive assistance from the French, Dutch and Spanish, perhaps the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Naval powers in the world at the time.

So no the American rebels couldn't win with their militia alone, but the militia were vital to victory. If anything modern communications and social media have increased the power of citizen weaponry. Liberals would love to flood America with Muslims like they've done in Europe, but citizen guns are a very powerful deterrent.
#14902615
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you give an example of when a popular, but vastly underpowered, insurgency was able to take down a dictatorship?


Are you joking, Mr. Cuba expert? Batista had 50x the numbers and vastly superior firepower and still couldn't maintain his grip on power. Castro didn't conquer Batista's army, the army just stopped fighting. Castro entered Havana unopposed.
#14902620
Sivad wrote:Are you joking, Mr. Cuba expert? Batista had 50x the numbers and vastly superior firepower and still couldn't maintain his grip on power. Castro didn't conquer Batista's army, the army just stopped fighting. Castro entered Havana unopposed.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

From my understanding, the MR-26s seized weapons from the Batista regime, and the defecting soldiers took their weapons with them when they joined Castro, and the US stopped supplying Batista with weapons because of his incompetence, so that by the time the MR-26s were capable of actually kicking Batista out, they had comparable weaponry to the dictatorship’s forces.
#14902631
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim.

From my understanding, the MR-26s seized weapons from the Batista regime, and the defecting soldiers took their weapons with them when they joined Castro, and the US stopped supplying Batista with weapons because of his incompetence, so that by the time the MR-26s were capable of actually kicking Batista out, they had comparable weaponry to the dictatorship’s forces.


Guevera won the war at Santa Clara with 340 men. He was up against a few thousand men with armor and artillery. After the defeat at Santa Clara Batista fled the country and the Army surrendered.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]