this post was submitted on
843 points (79% like it)
1,137 up votes 294 down votes
shortlink:

Libertarian

unsubscribe65,883 readers

~96 users here now

Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

Frequently Asked Questions

IRC CHANNEL: #Mises on irc.freenode.net

Webchat Link: /r/libertarian's in #mises IRC channel

/r/Libertarian is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (A practice encouraged by site reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

  • Please don't downvote comments. As much as you disagree with a comment, no one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them.
  • Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian.
  • Report spam, not content or comments you disagree with.
  • Don't be afraid to check out the new queue to get good content to the front page.

Related Subreddits:

Topics:

Types of Libertarianism:

People:

On Authority:

On War:

Around the World:

Informed Discussion:

Major Subreddits:

External:

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

842
843

An argument that never made sense to me (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by jadems

all 178 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]LibAtheist 86 points87 points ago

Yeah, because there are exactly 0 legitimate uses for firearms. /s Are automobile dealerships enablers of drunk driving?

[–]AJM1613 22 points23 points ago

Enjoyment and recreation is legitimate use.

[–]KerrickLonglibertarian party 27 points28 points ago

Hence /u/LibAtheist's "/s" -- it denotes the end of a sarcastic statement.

[–]vbullinger 3 points4 points ago

The way you said that made it sound like you and LibAtheist were disagreeing, which is certainly not the case.

[–]Deagle_Shitter 2 points3 points ago

Tell that to the most upvoted comment in /r/funny

[–]IronRedSix 1 point2 points ago

Reading down the line of that comment thread is like smashing my face against a brick wall. The guy uses "false equivalency" far too often, and applies it quite incorrectly. For example: He claims that a car and a gun are not similar because one was designed to kill and the other was invented to improve transportation. I find it interesting that, if broken down to a very basic level, a gun and a car are identical; they are both tools. One is a tool for hunting or defending one's self, the other is a tool to help you get around. Both a car and a gun can easily be used to kill many people, and no one is talking about banning cars. False equivalency, right.

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 0 points1 point ago

Being prepared to fight the government in the event violent revolution is needed. You know, the original intent of it.

[–]oliverMcMayonnaise 0 points1 point ago

I love shooting guns. I have a bunch.

[–]IcanAutoFellate 2 points3 points ago

I think it's more akin to fast food corporations are promoting terrible eating habits and perpetuating obesity. Not saying guns or fast food should be illegal, I just think this is an ill-thought metaphor.

[–]Zifnab25I Voted 0 points1 point ago

Legally speaking, bars are. In several states, if you sell a customer drinks and then allow him to drive himself home, and he wrecks his car or kills someone, the bar can be held liable for enabling the driver.

http://business-law.lawyers.com/business-litigation/Bar-Liability-for-Alcohol-Injuries.html

[–]kurtis1 -4 points-3 points ago

0 legitimate uses for fire arms? what the fuck, are you stupid? what about killing? thats the best thing to use a firearm for. fucking people....

[–]fuss58 -4 points-3 points ago

I really like your name

[–]LibAtheist 2 points3 points ago

You should see the confusion I engender over in gunnit. Have an upvote.

[–]fuss58 1 point2 points ago

thanks man. apparently people don't like the fact that I like your name... I am also a Libertarian Atheist. Oh well.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 36 points37 points ago

You guys see the other thread? Full on liberal circle jerking about "assault weapons" and how the government should ban private ownership. I literally had to stop posting and reading because I got so fucking angry.

Edit: just checked back in and the white knights of /r/guns are currently destroying them.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 24 points25 points ago

People truly believe a government ban will make them all disappear. It's sad that they have such a terrible understanding for the constitution.

[–]apsalarshade 16 points17 points ago

the worst is hearing the argument that "only the government should be allowed to have these types of guns." It is like they have never had a history class.

[–]LibAtheist 24 points25 points ago

Or that the government can provide them with security. They're fools, and unfortunately there are a lot of them. YOU are the first person you should count on for defense. The government is almost always there after the fact.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 13 points14 points ago

It goes along with the territory I guess, clearly this site has more white suburban rich people who've never had to call the police. How hard is it to show these people that police are reactive, not proactive?

[–]moxwind 3 points4 points ago

Nor do they understand that involving the police in anything often makes the situation worse or at least more volatile.

[–]snuffmeister 0 points1 point ago

I might not understand that point of view completely, but I'm instinctively not fond of it. I'd appreciate if you could clarify some things for me.

In a world where you are responsible for your own safety, if you unable (physically or otherwise) to defend yourself, how are you to fare?

Also, you say the government is always there after the fact, and as one of your repliers said, that it is reactive instead of proactive. How are you yourself proactive?

Note: I come from a country where this type of thing really isn't an issue. I don't even know what the law here states about gun regulation, because most people (and i don't mean 60%, I mean 95% or more) don't even own guns.

[–]LibAtheist 0 points1 point ago

In a world where you are responsible for your own safety, if you unable (physically or otherwise) to defend yourself, how are you to fare?

I didn't say there wouldn't be people to provide that service for you. The police are supposed to provide that service, but they are highly unreliable. Ultimately your safety is still your responsibility. It sucks, but that's life.

Also, you say the government is always there after the fact, and as one of your repliers said, that it is reactive instead of proactive. How are you yourself proactive?

I carry a firearm the majority of the time. I would every second of the day if it were legal to do so. Other than that, I try not to put myself in situations where I'm going to have to defend myself. I wish I didn't have to be that vigilant, but that's the reality today.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 11 points12 points ago

As an AK owner, I agree. People get all excited and worried at 1000rd ammo purchases when in reality that's about 3-4 hours shooting with a group. That's fine, while they argue that posting child porn is free speech, I'll continue to teach my son about firearm safety.

[–]majesticjg 11 points12 points ago

You never hear of a kid getting hurt because he or she knew too much about safety... It's always the other way around. My son may choose to own or not own a firearm, but either way, he WILL know how to be safe with one.

[–]heliosmj12 3 points4 points ago

Thank you sir. I think that responsible gun use should be taught at a young age

[–]Nefelia 1 point2 points ago

That's fine, while they argue that posting child porn is free speech

Was that really necessary? You are creating a false equivalence and alienating people who may otherwise find you reasonable.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson -1 points0 points ago

Yes. We have people who would die to protect a pedo who on this site but scoff at the right to bare arms. This is deplorable.

[–]majesticjg 8 points9 points ago

Why not? It worked for drugs, right?

[–]DJMattB241 3 points4 points ago

Just like how since drugs are illegal, I'm totally not stoned right now.

[–]Nefelia -1 points0 points ago

Living in China has given me a different perspective on this issue.

Any half measure will not work. As the 'white knights' of /r/guns could probably tell you, making guns difficult to acquire will simply take leave law-abiding citizens without. Meanwhile criminals will continue to acquire guns with relative ease.

In order to prevent criminals from having guns, the US would have to impose a total ban similar to that of China and Japan. Gun crime would be eliminated, but there would be trade-offs (most notably women and the elderly would not have the option of defending themselves with firearms).

Personally, I am quite happy to live in a gun-free society. But I am a fairly strong male and can rely on my fists or a handy chair should I ever feel threatened. Many others won't feel the same way.

[–]pinchealeman 4 points5 points ago

wait, where are people saying that all guns should be banned?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]pinchealeman 4 points5 points ago

eh, I skimmed. I didn't see anyone honestly saying that guns should be banned. I saw someone point out the positive correlation between the gun laws in England and their lower gun violence, but no one actually advocating that they be banned.

I just feel like this "democrats want to ban guns" meme is kind of ridiculous. I don't know any democrats who actually want to ban guns (hell, I'm a democrat and I want to own a gun).

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]pinchealeman -1 points0 points ago

well, there's definitely a difference between an ak and a p226, and I don't think any amount of firearms knowledge is going to make people comfortable with widespread ownership ak ownership.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]pinchealeman 2 points3 points ago

If you look at statistics a handgun is far more likely to be used in a crime.

icwatudidthere ;)

how many ak's do you think are "in circulation" in the US?

how man handguns?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]oote 1 point2 points ago

Most countries outside of the US.

[–]vbullinger 0 points1 point ago

A piece of shit Hellhole called /r/politics

[–]weewolf 3 points4 points ago

Just ban criminals.

[–]Deagle_Shitter 4 points5 points ago

Edit: just checked back in and the white knights of /r/guns are currently destroying them.

I gave it my best, but we're outnumbered. All we can do now is hope FirearmConcierge and zaptal_47 can save the day. Don't think its gonna happen because zaptal hates politics.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 2 points3 points ago

Haha, enough of us showed up to fight bullshit with facts and that's what counts. I've learned that Reddit isn't solely one way on the issue and even some non gun owners were defending the right to own. We can't reach everyone, but we can certainly curb some of the lies about fully automatic, baby seeking, black bullet Glock AR47 cop killers.

[–]empyreanmax 4 points5 points ago

...why shouldn't assault weapons not be available to the general public?

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 10 points11 points ago

They should. I'm for full on, no compromise gun ownership. Full auto, silencers and every cal that the government has should be easily accessible to the general public.

[–]utohs 0 points1 point ago

Legitimate question: even nuclear weapons? I am a libertarian and all for the second amendment, but I am also OK with putting SOME limit on which weapons are available. Help me fix my inconsistent thinking.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 0 points1 point ago

Bombs are considered ordnance, not arms, so no.

Edit: basically, think of it like this: I propose that citizens should have access to basic army weapons so that we will stand equal chance when engaged with an enemy.

[–]utohs 0 points1 point ago

what enemy are you talking about? What if you believe that the government is the enemy?

[–]empyreanmax 1 point2 points ago

But why though? What is the benefit of having your average citizen being able to deal death to multiple people quickly and easily?

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 16 points17 points ago

It's not about killing people, it's about the second amendment. It's our right to have weapons equivalent to the governments in case we should ever find ourselves in a position in which we need protection from our government. If we can't fight the government or an aggressor on an technologically even playing field, than what good is the second amendment?

[–]Aceofshovels 2 points3 points ago

Doesn't this argument fall apart when you consider that the public shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons?

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 2 points3 points ago

We should be able to have access to what infantry men have. Full auto rifles, LMG's, rockets. Plus. The costs of making a nuclear bomb, as well as figuring out how to make it are prohibitively high for a private entity.

[–]svadhisthana 1 point2 points ago

The costs of making a nuclear bomb, as well as figuring out how to make it are prohibitively high for a private entity.

This is a cop out response. You're not saying whether WMDs should be allowed to be owned by citizens. And you're ignoring that some are wealthy enough to buy them. It's not cost prohibitive for everyone.

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 0 points1 point ago

Those who are actually wealthy enough aren't criminals though. Bill Gates is a pretty cool guy. If anything he'd use nuclear technology for good.

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

You're ignoring a whole lot of billionaires that aren't so humanitarian.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 0 points1 point ago

I draw the line for basic weapons like AR15s, AKs etc. We couldn't really fight off a nuclear attack or air strike and I'm aware of this.

[–]manchegoo 0 points1 point ago

Nuclear weapons are not "arms", they're "ordinance".

[–]anon47 0 points1 point ago

If someone wants some historical perspective on this, during the revolutionary war it was common for wealth people to own cannons and warships. So the idea that the common man would be as well armed as the government has been around for a long time.

[–]Nefelia 0 points1 point ago

It's not about killing people, it's about the second amendment.

I can understand that. But your original post mentions silencers and "every cal that the government has".

I don't see the utility of silencers in mounting a revolution against a tyrannical government. I also don't particularly care to see people toting around .50 cal machine guns.

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson -1 points0 points ago

You don't see the value of silencers? Have you ever shot a firearm? There are several tactical advantages to silencers. Also, just because these weapons make you uncomfortable doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to own them. Gays make people uncomfortable, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to get married (I know they can't but work with me on this)

[–]Supersnazz 2 points3 points ago

Saying that you need guns to fight off the government, should the need arise is sort of an extreme argument. When it gets to the stage where the American population is engaging in active military combat with it's own government, you are at the stage of complete social breakdown. At this point there'll be boatloads of of military grade weapons being smuggled in and the law will effectively cease to exist. The fact you couldn't have an AK-47, or whatever will be completely irrelevant as warlords ship in god knows what.

[–]Tennessean 5 points6 points ago

It's not an extreme argument. It's the first argument. The second amendment isn't there for hunting rights, it's there to secure or country against tyranny. It's been proven necessary countless times in the world's history.

Maybe we've entered some new era of stability and brotherhood and people will never have to overthrow a government again, and maybe I'll ride my space unicorn over to Jupiter to pick up some milk and eggs.

[–]Supersnazz 0 points1 point ago

OK, but you have to accept that if the US population is overthrowing the Federal government by force, then everything changes. If you are part of a militia overthrowing the government, then clearly you are not going to let a few restrictive gun laws stop you. I don't think restrictive gun laws would affect a militia trying to overthrow a despotic US government should the need arise.

[–]Tennessean 0 points1 point ago

Where is that militia getting those restricted weapons in the first place? Are they raiding national guard posts with deer rifles?

Sure, it might work, but I prefer the threat of an already well armed population. Nobody wants to shoot at guardsmen. Many members of my family are in the guard or regular military. Armed civilians are hopefully the ounce of prevention, not the pound of cure.

[–]moneypej 0 points1 point ago

Seems that venezuela is doing just fine removing it's people's rights without much effort. A poorly armed populace is an easy thing to subjugate with the might of the military behind you. Now take afghanistan and iraq... Even a moderately armed populace is difficult to control.

[–]OccasionalAsshole 3 points4 points ago

If a tyrannical government has more firepower than the citizens do then the citizens can't really overthrow that government can they?

[–]Tennessean 1 point2 points ago

The government will have better firepower. Guerrilla war just has to work long enough for the organised military to decide they aren't shooting their family members.

[–]empyreanmax -1 points0 points ago

You're securing an advantage for a hypothetical, improbable situation, while ignoring the impact it has in other very real areas.

[–]OccasionalAsshole 4 points5 points ago

You asked for the benefit and I gave you one. Obviously this is a worst case scenario but don't think for a second that I ignore "real areas" simply because I support protection against an oppressive government. Your mistake is assuming that the presence of firearms is the most important factor in affecting these "real areas" instead of the actual factors such as wealth inequality and social issues.

[–]BonnieBlueFlag 1 point2 points ago

It's uncomfortable for many to think about, but the entire reason the 2nd Amendment exists is so that the populace would be equipped to violently overthrow the federal government, as they had to in the Revolutionary War.

[–]Aceofshovels -1 points0 points ago

I'm fairly sure that nuclear weapons have more firepower than any assault weapon.

[–]OccasionalAsshole 2 points3 points ago

I love how people misinterpret my meaning and take it to the extremes that I'm saying an ordinary citizen should have access to nuclear weapons. This is not a black-and-white issue despite what others would paint it to be. Nuclear weapons cause irreversible damage to the environment and the people they affect so no, they should not be available to the public or even governments for that matter. Also, what government would detonate a nuclear bomb in their own country?

[–]manchegoo 3 points4 points ago

The 2nd amendment applies to arms. Nukes are ordinance. Even at the time of drafting, it was understood that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the ordinance of the day (eg canons, bombs, explosives, etc ).

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 2 points3 points ago

Because there's just loads of billy bobs with the time, money, and brains to figure out how to make a nuke and get the materials to make it. You're living in a fantasy world.

[–]ArchonAlarionancap 0 points1 point ago

What is the benefit of the average citizen having a musket, a sword, a stone axe?

As weapons technology progresses, the citizenry must have access to more advanced weaponry, otherwise their supposed democratic sovereignty is in name only.

[–]senorcool 4 points5 points ago

The argument is that they serve no hunting purpose, are used for mass killings, and are not legitimate personal protection (other guns would do just fine). However, those people have never shot one (funnnnnn) nor do they understand what "personal protection" means.

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 1 point2 points ago

They also don't know how few mass shootings there are in the US, hell, not even all of them involve "assault weapons" Virginia tech was done with 2 handguns. One of them was a 22

[–]BonnieBlueFlag 1 point2 points ago

People need to realize that they absolutely do serve a hunting purpose. No, it's not the perfect gun for every scenario/animal, but some AR setups would be ideal for out in the field.

[–]RadioFreeRedditConstitutionalist 0 points1 point ago

where?

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 0 points1 point ago

It's the picture thing in /r/funny

[–]bobthereddituser 1 point2 points ago

What other thread?

[–]ikillbambisVote Gary Johnson 3 points4 points ago

http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/11t8su/ban_guns/

[–]ProjectD13Xvoluntaryist 1 point2 points ago

THE STUPID IT BURNS. Honestly, gun control is one of the few things in this world that make me ANGRY. Lots of things make me frustrated, incompetence, bad traffic, doing poorly on a test, but they don't make me angry. People wanting to take away my rights of self defense from criminals and the government and making light of suicide are the only things that make me ANGRY.

[–]nckclsn 0 points1 point ago

Awesomely relevant username

[–]V-Tonic 20 points21 points ago

So by that logic if I stab someone in the face with a kitchen knife should Ginsu be held liable for my actions? It really is a dumb argument.

Edit: Because apparently I think the words held and help are interchangeable.

[–]cattreeinyoursoul 7 points8 points ago

I dunno. Those things are really friggin' sharp. The things I've seen them do to a tomato....<shudder>

[–]majesticjg 2 points3 points ago

You can cut a tin can with it! (But you wouldn't want to!)

[–]deja-vu-comment 23 points24 points ago

Spoon makers are indeed complicit in the ingestion of food.

.

[–]Thimble 5 points6 points ago

It's why Asians are so skinny. Chopsticks slow that shit goin' down.

[–]serpicowasright 1 point2 points ago

And really we should have a ban on all spoons to curb obesity.

[–]playpianoking 2 points3 points ago

The argument makes perfect sense to me and everyone else. How does it not make sense? Should spoon companies be liable then for people that get fat because they ate with a spoon? Of course not. You are responsible for yourself period.

[–]g4r4e0g 18 points19 points ago

I know, he can just as easily eat with his hands.

Even worse, is now with Michelle Obama's fight against obesity there is a proposed 24 hour wait to purchase any utensil.

[–]ares_god_not_sign 12 points13 points ago

Not to mention the background checks. "It says here you joined a gym last January, but stopped going in March."

[–]ronpaulkid 5 points6 points ago

Careful, you might end up on the "No Utensil Watch List".

[–]TheNev 2 points3 points ago

Remember how we ended gang violence in the US when we outlawed the switchblade in 1958?

Remember how we ended the drug epidemic by making drugs illegal?

Remember how we ended poverty by declaring war on it and giving everyone "free" money?

Remember how we ended crime in Chicago by outlawing handguns?

[–]svadhisthana 0 points1 point ago

Remember how we ended poverty by declaring war on it and giving everyone "free" money?

No. I definitely don't remember this.

[–]MMSTINGRAY 2 points3 points ago

Yes I think even people who don't like gun ownership think this is a stupid argument.

[–]oote 1 point2 points ago

True

[–]archpope 2 points3 points ago

OK, this is a stretch I admit, but I think their reasoning works like this: A gun is designed with only one purpose in mind, to put small lethal holes in living tissue from a distance. Its sole purpose is to kill, and you really can't say that about a car or even a knife. Perhaps if guns served any other purpose (ear piercing, auto repair, gardening) people might not be so willing to make this argument.

As I said, this is a stretch. I know this argument is weak, and I doubt I could defend it.

[–]BreezyD 1 point2 points ago

I agree, that's the sole reason that I own my guns. They were purchased for self defense, and my state licensed me to carry them for explicit purpose of self defense. However, I don't see that as a negative. Yes, guns are designed to injure or kill, to "stop" an assailant or attacker or intruder that threatens my life or my family. That's absolutely their purpose. I won't argue otherwise.

[–]rancegt 1 point2 points ago

A golf club can be used to enjoy a game of golf. It can be used for self defense. It can also be used for murder.

Guns are used in marksmanship, a very enjoyable pursuit. For example, many guns are fired during the Olympics without putting holes in anyone. Likewise a gun can be used for self-defense, or to murder someone.

[–]oy_gevalt 11 points12 points ago

Actually, the argument makes perfect sense. Some gun sellers are complicit in crimes (but are not accomplices in the violent crime itself), because they intentionally sell guns to straw purchasers.

That's illegal, just as it's illegal for a 21 year old to buy alcohol on behalf of an underage person.

Here is just the first, handiest summary of how it works. A belief in the 2nd Amendment does not, however, mean that the laws on the books should be ignored.

If you want to ignore state and federal law and one obvious meaning behind the sign, go ahead. Your rather intentional ignorance does not change the fact that, yes, some gun sellers are committing crimes.

Or is it that you don't believe in laws? They're such a burden in a democratic society.

[–]cattreeinyoursoul 7 points8 points ago

But I think the guy on the street with the sign is saying that even if you sell a gun in a legal way, you should still be liable if it is used in a crime. After all, why protest something that is already against the law?

[–]oy_gevalt 2 points3 points ago

That's probably what he's saying, but that's just moralistic rhetoric. Gun sellers are not, literally, accomplices to crimes. Not legally. He knows that. He's probably just saying their work is unethical. It's not a very complex position.

[–]Gright_Nacht 13 points14 points ago

I'm strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, and I want to know why you are all downvoting this man.

There are gun dealers that do not follow protocol when selling firearms. Those kinds of sellers prefer a quick buck over keeping firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them.

I support the 2nd amendment, but I also support the adherence to fair, practical gun distribution laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who do not know gun safety, or people who have a history of malevolence.

If I sell one of my guns to a high school kid, to some extent I am certainly responsible if he goes off and starts shooting up his classroom.

[–]ronpaulkid 3 points4 points ago

Who decides what is a fair law and what is not when it comes to gun laws? If you get a speeding ticket, should you not be allowed to buy a gun? Should a gun store be shut down because they sold a gun to you 1 day before your 21st birthday as if overnight you were going to miraculously obtain new levels of maturity?

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[–]Gright_Nacht 1 point2 points ago

I don't understand what your point is.

Are you saying guns should be easier to purchase than they already are?

edit: Also, rules must be defined. I wouldn't put a store out of business for selling one day early, but rules have to be defined. The line has to be drawn somewhere. You can't measure maturity, but you can measure age, which is linked to maturity.

[–]damndirtyape 2 points3 points ago

Why do there have to be a lot of rules? Why do we need a nanny state looking over our shoulder, telling us how to live our lives?

[–]Gright_Nacht 1 point2 points ago

You're right. Lets let 16 year olds, people with a violent past, and people with known psychological conditions purchase guns.

Screw rules. Let's sacrifice basic safety so the idiot freshmen at the local high school can pretend to be gangsters.

edit: you may not need a nanny to look after you, but there are a lot of dumbasses out there who do need someone to boss them around. If no one bosses them around they're gonna hurt someone with their stupidity or immorality

To be free, one must be chained. And to be safe, one must wear the same chains as his would-be assailant.

edit2: removed foul language. was drunk when typing.

[–]strider_sifurowuh 0 points1 point ago

I applaud your application of doublethink

[–]Gright_Nacht 0 points1 point ago

Please quote the two contradicting statements. Also, please avoid quoting any sarcasm. Until you can quote the things I've said that can be considered doublethinking, I'm going to assume you do not know what the word "doublethink" means.

edit: And please keep in mind the subject is gun distribution laws. I'm not talking about every law in the US Judicial system or the US governing body.

edit2: Lastly, please keep in mind I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I also support the enforcing of responsible firearm distribution.

[–]strider_sifurowuh 0 points1 point ago

using the imagery of slavery in order to maintain freedom

[–]damndirtyape 1 point2 points ago

The problem is that the people making the rules are often dumbasses themselves. When I look at our politicians, I see incompetence and corruption. I don't have this great faith in the system that you seem to.

Also, your chains comment is disturbing. If you want to convince people that the government is good, it'd probable be a good idea to avoid slave imagery.

[–]Gright_Nacht 0 points1 point ago

What are you talking about? You're completely off the subject.

All you're doing is stating Libertarian ideology and paying zero regard to the subject we're discussing. Everything you've said so far has been general and ambiguous. You've said nothing pertaining to gun laws. All you've done is state your sentiment on the government as a whole.

I am specifically addressing gun laws, not the whole system. You're assumption that I have great faith in the system is silly. I disagree with a significant portion of our laws, but I do however support laws that keep firearms out of the hands of those who do not know gun safety, those with violent/criminal histories, and those with known psychological disorders.

If you'd like to argue, argue about the subject, which is gun laws. I feel like you're just trying to impress me by rehashing Libertarian philosophy that I already know and believe myself.

Also, the chain comment is a famous quote that many people who have taken a law/government class know. If you think it alludes to actual slavery then you didn't put enough thought into analyzing the quote. If you want to be free, you have to sacrifice some freedoms. Would you really like to live in a world where anyone could do anything without facing consequences?

edit: Not every law is a terrible law. If you truly believe all the laws are corrupt, you aren't thinking critically and you're just as bad as extreme Liberals and Conservatives. Some laws are good. If you're not taking the time to learn about laws and analyze what they've succeeded/failed at before condemning/supporting them, you're doing it wrong.

I will respect your opinions, but you have yet to say anything pertaining to gun laws.

[–]confoxancap 4 points5 points ago

That's illegal, just as it's illegal for a 21 year old to buy alcohol on behalf of an underage person.

No it isn't. If the alcohol merchant was held to the same standard as the gun merchant, such as in the case of straw purchases you mentioned, then he should share the responsibility of the purchaser who contributed to the minor's delinquency. But guns laws and attitudes are often inconsistent with other similar laws. Take the use of a silencer or sound suppressor while hunting for instance, which is illegal due to their supposed usefulness in poaching. If that were the case it should be treated like the possession of burglary tools, but whereas intent to commit burglary is a prerequisite to be found guilty of such a charge, it is not necessary to intend to commit the crime of poaching to found guilty of hunting with a silencer.

[–]LibAtheist 1 point2 points ago

Silencers/suppressors aren't illegal in some states. Not sure about the laws regarding their use in hunting. I wish silencers/suppressors weren't an NFA item and looked at like they are tools of criminals. Guns are fucking loud, and I like my hearing. It would be nice to be able to have silencers/suppressors available at reasonable prices. Any NFA item you should expect to pay out the nose though.

[–]DeadSalesman 2 points3 points ago

Suppressors are legal to hunt with in some states. I have a friend that hunts with a suppressed AR when he goes to VA. He has the most sensitive hearing of anyone I know. I don't blame him.

[–]oy_gevalt 1 point2 points ago

I cannot speak to silencers/ poaching because I do not think that is an applicable comparison.

Yes, it's illegal to buy alcohol on behalf of a minor - by state law in many if not most states. I think the law has exceptions for family. Rather than consider all 50 states and all 13 Canadian provinces/ territories, let's just assume I was referring to those states where it is illegal to do so.

What we're talking about here is using a straw purchaser as a subterfuge to facilitate a sale to someone who otherwise cannot make the purchase himself, such as a minor or a felon. Whether it's alcohol or guns, it's a crime to make purchases on behalf of a person.

It's also a crime to knowingly participate in such a sale - and I assume "knowledge" can be established in different ways. In some cases, there may be enough evidence to demonstrate that the seller DID know the sale was was to a straw purchaser. In other cases, the prosecution may established that the seller knew or should have known.

[–]confoxancap 2 points3 points ago

I agree that gun sellers are accomplices to a crime when they knowingly sell firearms to straw purchasers, and ultimately a prohibited person, but it seems silly to protest against something which is already a crime that is so proactively prosecuted and punished severely. People don't protest schools with signs that say "Teachers Are Accomplices Of Crime," and defend it by saying that some teachers in disparate parts of the country have been occasionally convicted of raping children. I interpret this man's message as saying something about all gun merchants, not necessarily those guilty of some crime you think the man is referencing without evidence.

[–]phoenix_insurgent 2 points3 points ago

Let me preface this by saying that I am a gun owner and am against state regulation of gun ownership. However, gun ownership in the US is a result of the country being a settler nation. That is, settling the continent required an armed population. Every white male was expected to be the vanguard of colonization and the expansion of white supremacy as the country spread westward. Settler societies that trace their origins back to English imperialism generally have the same characteristics in this regard. The reverse was also true. The government has spent a lot of time fighting to keep legal guns out of the hands of black people in particular. One of the central characteristics of whiteness in the South was, of course, being armed and participating in slave patrols. Any white person could demand identification from any black person, and they could do it at gun point. And gun ownership was a defining characteristic of whiteness in general. So gun ownership was central to the continuation of the slave system, the colonial attack on indigenous people (and the theft of their land -- which white people got as a result) and the defense of the privileges of whiteness. These privileges continue to this day. This isn't an argument against gun ownership. I just wanted to point out the historical context that people should be aware of.

[–]nissykayo 2 points3 points ago

Awesome post, seriously.

[–]budguy68 -1 points0 points ago

white guilt is strong with you

[–]phoenix_insurgent 2 points3 points ago

I like how you call knowledge of history -- especially when it still pertains today -- "white guilt". I think you are the guilty one.

[–]slinkyfarm 0 points1 point ago

Look into a little more history. Those indigenous people not only weren't as innocent as people seem to think now, but did things that would be considered war crimes. In one example, the Mohawks captured and enslaved a Jesuit priest, pulled out his fingernails and chewed off some of his fingers. He escaped, went back a few years later on a peace mission, was again enslaved, and was eventually beheaded with a tomahawk. He and five other priests were canonized by the Catholic church, the "North American Martyrs". I have ancestors whose houses were burned down and livestock slaughtered, including a couple who had a child who was killed by Indians, and they lived under constant threat of attack and occasionally had to flee for their lives when those threats rang true. Farmers, not soldiers. Not to mention the tribes that were warring against each other during that time. And land has been one of the spoils of war as long as there's been war. Any number of other civilizations throughout history, including some Indian tribes, would have wiped them out completely and left no trace of their existence.

[–]phoenix_insurgent 1 point2 points ago

Why do you think the local natives would attack settlers?

[–]budguy68 0 points1 point ago

Lets talk about current events. 9 out of 10 black homicides are cause by, you guessed it, blacks. Blacks commit like 40% of all violent crimes yet only make up 13% of the population. But I guess putting these facts out there makes me sound like a racist right?

Also it was a good idea to be armed during the American Colonization. It was common sense. Today we would be a lot better off if we were armed but people like you probably think its a bad idea because of wild west movies.

[–]phoenix_insurgent 0 points1 point ago

Didn't I preface my comment by saying I was a gun owner, in favor of gun ownership and against state regulation of gun ownership?

[–]Phallic -1 points0 points ago

If you want to flesh this out a bit he could have a point.

Forget the domestic scene for a second and consider the fact that the US supplies the majority of illegal weapons to South America.

American weapons manufacturers don't institute sufficient safeguards to prevent thousands of weapons being illegally exported to countries where they would not otherwise be, and from there they are used in all sorts of horrific ways against people, including civilians.

I think the American gun control debate doesn't spend enough time dealing with the issues that stem from exports of American weapons to third world countries, especially in the Central and South Americas.

As far as I'm concerned that issue is completely separate to whatever discussion you want to have about local regulation, and I don't think it gets enough attention at all.

[–]Bennyboy1337 0 points1 point ago

I think the American gun control debate doesn't spend enough time dealing with the issues that stem from exports of American weapons to third world countries, especially in the Central and South Americas.

I agree for the most part; the issue is there wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the rampant drug war which has spurred the criminal organizations in S-America, that have demand for the guns. Gun laws are good in the USA, it's this self destructive drug war which is the root of the problem. No matter how strict gun laws are they will still find their way into the hands of criminals, just like no matter how strict drug laws are drugs will always find their ways into the hands of users; you're not addressing the root problem.

End the drug war, regulate drug distribution, big crime organizations start to disappear, you have less killing throughout all of America, Win Win. Wish we had some politicians with the guts to stand up and end this pointless war which has destroyed the image of responsible gun ownership.

[–]visarga 0 points1 point ago

I think big crime will diversify and survive. It won't just disappear like that, it has a mind of its own, resources and a lack of scrupules.

[–]salvia_d 0 points1 point ago

OMG! That made me laugh way harder than it should have. Thanks.

[–]thehooptie 0 points1 point ago

well if they are not doing proper background checks sure

[–]akhenatron 1 point2 points ago

Words on paper never stopped people from doing anything. At best, they've been punished; but only the ones who were dumb enough to get caught. Ergo: laws are made to punish the stupid.

[–]criticalnegation 0 points1 point ago

im all for gun control: police should not have them. civy ownership is not so much a problem with me.

[–]Andrewwwwwww 0 points1 point ago

Any time the government tries to ban something, it seems to appear much more readily. Thus proving the Streisand Effect. I'm under the age of 21 and it is much easier to get weed than it is alcohol. Government banning guns will not solve anything

[–]samulin1 -1 points0 points ago

Okay, but why you do have so much violent gun crimes in American then, Libertarians? Or you think that personal freedom is more important than gun crimes?

[–]motchmaster 2 points3 points ago

Those who trade liberty with security deserve neither.

[–]chaddercheese 2 points3 points ago

The relationship between gun restriction and gun crime in the United States is a positive trend: generally speaking, cities with heavy levels of restriction and regulation have higher violent gun crime rates. Just take a look at Chicago. Gun control doesn't work and typically has the opposite effect on crime.

Total restriction of gun ownership in the United States is an absolute impossibility. Not only are guns already heavily ingrained in our society with high rates of responsible ownership, but there's one key factor that people tend to forget about- our friendly 3rd world neighbor to our south. The Mexican-US border is extremely porous and only acts as an excuse for increasing drug war funding and militarization of police forces. Weapons, drugs, and slaves all pass through the border in both directions in so high of a quantity that it's difficult for even the most educated experts to estimate. Illegal drugs in the US are so prevalent that I can almost guarantee that at least 50% of US redditors know where they could obtain several examples within a very short period of time. Increasing gun regulation only affects law abiding citizens and emboldens armed criminals in a gun free environment. I believe the best way to combat violent gun crime isn't to regulate guns more harshly, but to solve the problem at its sources: problems in our education system and our failed war on drugs which have led to a society that embraces ignorance and 'thug life'.

Besides all that, gun ownership is more important for protecting our freedoms and way of life than the relatively marginal number of violent gun crimes. Yes, I'm saying that the people that die every year in violent gun crimes are marginal to the importance of why our 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

[–]tomjen 1 point2 points ago

Because there is a war on drugs which is run far harsher here than elsewhere.

Also we let the mentally ill out in the sixties.

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point ago

Even back when countries like the UK had the same gun laws as the US, meaning none, there was still a noticeable difference in crime rates.

There is something behind the idea that the US is just more prone to crime. NB crime has been dropping in the US and I'm in no way trying insult any US citizen.

[–]TEA_PARTY_PATRIOT 0 points1 point ago

GOD BLESS THOSE PATRIOT SPOONS

[–]Caltrops 0 points1 point ago

His spoon doesn't make bystanders fat, though.

[–]ltuae42 1 point2 points ago

things don't kill people, people kill people.- any reasonable person ever

[–]DeusExMachina95 0 points1 point ago

Does that mean toasters don't toast toast, but toast toast toast?

[–]visarga 0 points1 point ago

The spoon comparison is flawed, in my opinion. I could eat moderately with a spoon without getting fat. Could you moderately shoot someone? If you don't intend to shoot with the gun and use it just for intimidation, buy a plastic facsimile instead.

But discussing about guns is useless because the problem lays elsewhere. What matters is how integrated the society is. Violence can be curbed by reducing class division and increasing the formation of more connections between people that would have been separated otherwise by their nationality, wealth, sexual orientation or religion. The less divided we are, the less violent we are.

[–]saucemoney 0 points1 point ago

It "doesn't make sense to [you]"?

Really? I think the argument is very clear. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it definitely makes sense. There's no need to be willfully ignorant of the opposition's positions, that's what hardcore Repubs and Dems do.

[–]jamesfd94 0 points1 point ago

Just say "Vermont" when debating a pro-gun control advocate and automatically win.

[–]joekewle 0 points1 point ago

Well, New York thinks its cups that make you fat...

Also, this was taken at the "Shooters Shop" in West Allis, Wisconsin:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=The+Shooters+Shop,+South+84th+Street,+West+Allis,+WI&hl=en&ll=42.999527,-88.017361&spn=0.004174,0.009645&sll=42.999528,-88.017759&layer=c&cid=8344425463436469392&cbp=13,268.99,,0,-0.44&cbll=42.999527,-88.017361&hq=The+Shooters+Shop,+South+84th+Street,+West+Allis,+WI&t=h&z=17&panoid=tguYycDW_rMGCFWYn0PW3Q

[–]baconabuser -1 points0 points ago

There is a higher level of consequence with one of these, there should be better regulation.

[–]Trevellian -2 points-1 points ago

A spoon won't go off accidentally and shove enough food in your mouth to kill you

[–]KerrickLonglibertarian party 7 points8 points ago

A gun won't go off accidentally either. It requires the trigger to be pressed.

[–]Malkav1379 3 points4 points ago

I beg you to link us an article/proof of a firearm accidentally firing, all by itself, without any human/animal/etc interaction.

[–]Bennyboy1337 2 points3 points ago

If you don't think spoons can kill you must have never worked in a prison.

[–]Malkav1379 0 points1 point ago

What kind of spoons do they use in prisons??? I have probably close to two dozen spoons in my kitchen and they've never killed anyone.

Perhaps the prisons should consider using a different kind of spoon...

*not sure if sarcastic or...

[–]motchmaster 0 points1 point ago

I have a friend who is a security guard in a prison. Prisoners can make weapons out of anything. Including spoons.

[–]Bennyboy1337 0 points1 point ago

Prison Shanks- even a plastic spoon can be hardened by repeatedly melting the plastic, then filing it to a pointed edge, a razor blade can also be attached to the end of a plastic spoon when the plastic is melted; ofcourse a metal spoon can be filled to be really deadly, but I don't think there is a single prison in the USA that still issues metal utensils.

[–]Require_More_Mineral 0 points1 point ago

If you're practicing proper gun safety, accidents will be minimal to nonexistant.

[–]Tajz -2 points-1 points ago

There's just one thing about questions like this I really can't understand. Sure, I guess I'd say you have the right to own guns, but why the f*** would anyone make this an important political question? As a libertarian you should really have some more important things to be considered about.

[–]tomjen 0 points1 point ago

Never lived in a bad neighborhood have you?

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 27381 on app-11 running 320e81d.