Libertarians: Good or evil?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not giving up liberty for security. You can't enjoy liberty if you're dead from a silly idea like guns.

Theokhoth

Taking civilians guns away will take away their ability to defend themselves against criminals and the government. That sounds like a liberty to me.

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminals and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not giving up liberty for security. You can't enjoy liberty if you're dead from a silly idea like guns.

Theokhoth

Taking civilians guns away will take away their ability to defend themselves against criminals and the government. That sounds like a liberty to me.

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminals and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

If the 2nd ammendment was abolished, I would pack my bags and go to Switzerland first thing. That, besides the 1st ammendment, is the most important ammendment in the constitution.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not giving up liberty for security. You can't enjoy liberty if you're dead from a silly idea like guns.

Theokhoth

:| Aren't they the same thing?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm not giving up liberty for security. You can't enjoy liberty if you're dead from a silly idea like guns.

Theokhoth

Taking civilians guns away will take away their ability to defend themselves against criminals and the government. That sounds like a liberty to me.

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminals and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

iraqi's are capable of defending themselves against our army, and dont even have guns. so the idea of taking over a government isnt that far fetched.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Here's the thing: even with guns, the civilians have no power to suppress; they'd take out, what, three men if they were lucky and then be killed themselves. Then the government would get worse, using the dead men as examples. It's nothing but cosmic chest-beating.

LJS9502_basic

I disagree. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US which dwarfs the United States military. Only assuming that the military would fight for the government because of their swarn oath to take orders from the president.

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminalsTheokhoth

What should we use against a person with a gun?

and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

Theo

Russian Civil War; enlighten yourself.

They were done by guns but were not the cause of guns being readily available.

That makes no sense.

You can't enjoy liberty if you are murdered by Jack the Ripper either. You said we should try something new that we haven't done for 230 years? How about fixing up crappy neighborhoods or helping the poor? Do you know how many murders were committed in Hollywood last year? Zero, not so in southern Detroit.

VoodooGamer

Uncited statistics are uncited.

I'm not saying we shouldn't fix crappy neighborhoods; I'm saying that gun restrictions will go a good way to actually fixing them.

What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?

LikeHaterade

I vaguely remember this incident in the Nazi Death Camps...

If the 2nd ammendment was abolished, I would pack my bags and go to Switzerland first thing. That, besides the 1st ammendment, is the most important ammendment in the constitution.

battlefront23

Then you can join in Switzerland's rising gun crime rates. The Second Amendment is hardly important.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

If the 2nd ammendment was abolished, I would pack my bags and go to Switzerland first thing. That, besides the 1st ammendment, is the most important ammendment in the constitution.

Theokhoth

Then you can join in Switzerland's rising gun crime rates. The Second Amendment is hardly important.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. When there's a will, there's a way. The 2nd ammendment is vital for liberty's sake.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminalsVoodooGamer

What should we use against a person with a gun?

and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

Theo

Russian Civil War; enlighten yourself.

You mean the civil war where twenty million people died, and was eventually won with the help of the Allied Forces (as in, not civilians with firearms)?

People stopped farming the land after the Civil War, and that did more to the government than guns.:lol:

They were done by guns but were not the cause of guns being readily available.

That makes no sense.Theokhoth

It makes perfect sense. Guns committed the acts, but the crime wasn't committed because of the availibilty of guns.

Uncited statistics are uncited.

I'm not saying we shouldn't fix crappy neighborhoods; I'm saying that gun restrictions will go a good way to actually fixing them.

Theo

1.) I'm not your babysitter, look them up yourself; I'm not going to waste my time on a gaming forum pulling up some bloody statistics.

2.) Taking away guns isn't going to fix the problem which is rooted specifically in our polarized culture of Hollywood, wealth excess, and poverty.

Who's laws?Mr_sprinkles

You mean the civil war where twenty million people died, and was eventually won with the help of the Allied Forces (as in, not civilians with firearms)?

Theokhoth

No, like I said, WW1 was going on at the time, the Allies didn't do anything. And the fact that twenty million people died doesn't change the fact that they won their independence.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

battlefront23

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

You need to read through the Amendments buddy. Both are there.

VoodooGamer

No, they are not.

Amendment XIII - abolished slavery

Amendment XIX - Women's right to vote.

Those were the two that you mentioned.

No, like I said, WW1 was going on at the time, the Allies didn't do anything. \

VoodooGamer

Please don't tell me to educate myself if you're going to say things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

The great thing about libertarians is that they don't require high taxes like the republicans and democrats do. hoola

It's why I'd rather vote for one than a Republican or Democrat. I just think the foreign policy of Libertarians is too extreme; besides that, I'm basically a Libertarian.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"] Who's laws?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminalsVoodooGamer

What should we use against a person with a gun?

and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

Theo

Russian Civil War; enlighten yourself.

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Theokhoth

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Amendment XIII - abolished slavery

Amendment XIX - Women's right to vote.

Those were the two that you mentioned.

Lord__Darkstorn

No, I said that "Right of Slavery" and "Woman can't vote" weren't amendments in the constitution.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

battlefront23

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

And guns. Criminals get weapons from outside the country as well.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You don't need guns to defend yourself against criminalsLord__Darkstorn

What should we use against a person with a gun?

and the idea of defending yourself from the government with a pistol or shotgun is foolish and naive.

Theo

Russian Civil War; enlighten yourself.

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

thank god criminals dont have guns.... oh wait

think beofre you post

Please don't tell me to educate myself if you're going to say things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

Theokhoth

Point me to a reference, because it says nothing to support your claims.

You are nothing more than an evolutionary over-privileged animal.hrmuffnstuff

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

battlefront23

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Yes, but it will be much more difficult. Their sinful nature will be inhibited by their circumstances.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"] Who's laws?Mr_sprinkles

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

Lord__Darkstorn

Cut the attitude. Cocaine is also banned, but it's also one of the most profitable industries in the criminal underground.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

battlefront23

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Yes, so why have guns? If the Libertarians are so aroused by the concept of 'self-reliance' then let's see them fight with their bare hands instead of with firearms (which require much less skill than learning to defend yourself).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Please don't tell me to educate myself if you're going to say things like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

VoodooGamer

Point me to a reference, because it says nothing to support your claims.

:lol:

Now you're just getting desperate. Civilians with guns do not overthrow tyrannical governments.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

battlefront23

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Unless the crazy guy is twice your size, you'll find it a lot easier to take a punch than a bullet.

By the way, World War One lasted from 1914 to 1918. The Russian Civil War was from 1917 to 1923.:roll:Theokhoth

After WW1, the Allies were too focused on the Aftermath; what to do with Germany, how to diven up the disordered countries, sanctions on the Central Powers, the League of Nations, ect. The Aftermath of WW1 lasted all the way up to WW2, and we can still feel the effects of it today.

[Civilians with guns do not overthrow tyrannical governments. Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

VoodooGamer

Cut the attitude. Cocaine is also banned, but it's also one of the most profitable industries in the criminal underground.

That's not a reason to legalise cocaine.

[QUOTE="hoola"]The great thing about libertarians is that they don't require high taxes like the republicans and democrats do. battlefront23

It's why I'd rather vote for one than a Republican or Democrat. I just think the foreign policy of Libertarians is too extreme; besides that, I'm basically a Libertarian.

I seem to believe that a libertarian wouldn't get the military involved in another country unless absolutely necessary. When it comes to trade they are all about it being free. Some believe that free trade acts should be used while others think that REAL free trade would mean that other governments have the freedom to put tariffs and quotas and stuff on their imports and exports.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Lord__Darkstorn

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Yes, so why have guns? If the Libertarians are so aroused by the concept of 'self-reliance' then let's see them fight with their bare hands instead of with firearms (which require much less skill than learning to defend yourself).

im sure some libertarians are more into that, but your argument is one of the most childish ive heard in regards to this.

Yes, but it will be much more difficult. Their sinful nature will be inhibited by their circumstances.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Theokhoth

Then let's not give people a will and a way, especially such an easy way.

Sinful nature is the will and also the way (deviousness). If you take away guns, they'll use knifes, forks, they're own bare hands, etc.

Yes, but it will be much more difficult. Their sinful nature will be inhibited by their circumstances.

Regardless, I'd rather have guns just in case the gov't goes rogue. Wouldn't the gov't be the only one with guns? That's a scary thought. How could the second ammendment be abolished anyway? (If it was)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][Civilians with guns do not overthrow tyrannical governments. Vandalvideo

Examples?

[QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

VoodooGamer

Cut the attitude. Cocaine is also banned, but it's also one of the most profitable industries in the criminal underground.

You need to think about it, though. Guns would obviously become a black market commodity if they were banned, and would become much rarer, which makes owners more easily trackable. Als illegal gun owners would need to buy ammunition. Where would they be able to store weapons and boxes of ammo without being caught? Cocaine is different because it is so small ad versatile. Guns, on the other hand...

harmful drugs should be bannedTheokhoth

The problem with that of course is the definition of "harmful". I basically think only physically addictive drugs are harmful, while psychedelics such as LSD are not (with moderate, responsible use of course). But obviously many people would disagree with me, so trying to only make "non-harmful" drugs legal would be near impossible.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"] Who's laws?LJS9502_basic

I've forgotten what was being discussed now. Which I think means it's time for some sleep.

[QUOTE="VoodooGamer"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"]

If guns were banned then you wouldn't have to fight off a person with a gun! Think before you post!

Lord__Darkstorn

Cut the attitude. Cocaine is also banned, but it's also one of the most profitable industries in the criminal underground.

You need to think about it, though. Guns would obviously become a black market commodity if they were banned, and would become much rarer, which makes owners more easily trackable. Als illegal gun owners would need to buy ammunition. Where would they be able to store weapons and boxes of ammo without being caught? Cocaine is different because it is so small ad versatile. Guns, on the other hand...

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, but it will be much more difficult. Their sinful nature will be inhibited by their circumstances.

LJS9502_basic

I have four people responding to me at one time.:roll: Forgive me if I'm not Superman.

If people have a harder time finding a way, then the lazier ones will give up. "They'll just do it anyway" has never been and hopefully never will be a reason to legalise ANYTHING.

Now you're just getting desperate. Civilians with guns do not overthrow tyrannical governments.

Theokhoth

Okay, I was misinformed. However, it still does not prove your point, because their intervention as the Wiki article says was a failure.

However, opposition for ongoing campaign became too widespread, due to a combination of lack of support and war weariness; divided objectives and lack of strategy hampered the effort.Wiki

Regardless, I'd rather have guns just in case the gov't goes rogue. Wouldn't the gov't be the only one with guns? That's a scary thought. How could the second ammendment be abolished anyway? (If it was)

battlefront23

The government has big guns. Civilians have little guns. Government has armies. Civilians have groups. Government has armor, tactics, cooperation, experience, muscle and numbers. Civilians have. . . .guns.

Who would win?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, but it will be much more difficult. Their sinful nature will be inhibited by their circumstances.

Theokhoth

I have four people responding to me at one time.:roll: Forgive me if I'm not Superman.

If people have a harder time finding a way, then the lazier ones will give up. "They'll just do it anyway" has never been and hopefully never will be a reason to legalise ANYTHING.