• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libertarian Party's Platform on Gun Laws (1 Viewer)

Alex

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The complete platform of the Libertarian Party is here:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

The Libertarian Party's position on gun laws:

Personal Responsibility

Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml

I really agree with this. People should be held accountable for their actions and laws should not be based on what "might" happen. An entire population of people should not be penalized because of some people's irresponsibility.
 
Yeah, I agree.

Often times these people come from opposite places on the political spectrum, but there are many similarities between people who want gun control and people who want us to give up our civil liberties and privacy. Both advocate policies against the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Both believe that liberty can be sacraficed for security. Both claim to be saving lives, and both don't trust the average person.

I've followed the Libertarians a little bit. I like a lot of their platform, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Badnarik in the presidential race. I felt he was too radical and was running under misleading campaign slogans like "Bush will bring back the draft."
 
Ok, you can say that Gun's are inanimate objects, and that people should be held accountable. I agree with that. The simple fact remains that there will be people out there who are CRAZY and will not use Guns responsibly. Defending Guns is like defending Marijuana (I know that is also in the Libertarian party platform). Marijuana wouldn't be such a detriment to society if people didn't abuse it so much. People will and do abuse their right to guns, and people die as a result. PEOPLE DIE. The only difference is that there isn't an amendment in the bill of rights saying we have the right to Marijuana.

The second Amendment is an Archaic law, and most people who support it don't bother reading the first half of the sentence. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." We don't need a militia, we've got the most powerful friggin army in the whole wide world! I'll let them have guns, but don't ask me to give assault rifles to weirdos because they say they need them for "Hunting" or "self defense". It just nonsensicle.
 
Actually, I believe that most of these drugs should be legalized. Yes, I know people could die if they abuse drugs. You claim that the constiution allows for our drug war when in fact the war on drugs does not fit in well with our consitution. We blatantly break the rule about regulating only interstate commerce, and I'm sure that unreasonable search and seizure occurs to find these drugs.

Do you really believe that we should ban everything that can hurt someone?
 
I don't believe we should ban everything that can hurt someone. I believe we should ban things that are MADE to hurt someone. I understand that you believe in legalizing drugs, and I understand that as a valid point. I guess MY point is that, constitutionality aside, if you had to have one of the two be legal wouldn't you rather have drugs legalized and guns banned, and not the other way around? I know I would. It just seems backwards to me.
 
Mikkel said:
I don't believe we should ban everything that can hurt someone. I believe we should ban things that are MADE to hurt someone.
Click to expand...

I understand that guns are designed to hurt people, but Alcohol and drugs each kill more people than do guns. There are many legitimate reasons to own guns, and I believe that people should be allowed to take responsibility for their own security. Are there any good reasons own alcohol? Excepting religious reasons, probably not.
 
The difference is that the POINT of the gun is to kill other people. The point of drugs and alcohol is to make yourself goofy so you can have a good time. When someone buys a bottle of liquor they aren't thinking, "If someone tries to mess with me I'm going to get drunk and hit them with my car."

As for security, as long as guns are legalized it makes it so very easy for criminals go get their hands on them, thereby making everyone's security at risk. I'd rather have a sock of quarters to defend myself against someone without a gun than defend myself with a gun against someone who has one as well.
 
Mikkel said:
The difference is that the POINT of the gun is to kill other people. The point of drugs and alcohol is to make yourself goofy so you can have a good time. When someone buys a bottle of liquor they aren't thinking, "If someone tries to mess with me I'm going to get drunk and hit them with my car."
Click to expand...

You seem to only care about motives, not about the actual results of the two products.

But while we're on the subject of motives, what do you say to people who might need a gun because they need it for security? I think they have a greater need than an alcoholic. Are you going to take away their gun and say "here, have a sock of quarters?"
 
Connecticutter said:
You seem to only care about motives, not about the actual results of the two products.

But while we're on the subject of motives, what do you say to people who might need a gun because they need it for security? I think they have a greater need than an alcoholic. Are you going to take away their gun and say "here, have a sock of quarters?"
Click to expand...

The theory is that if we put restrictions on gun ownership, the accessability of guns to criminals will diminish, therefore the need for security will be lessened, thereby making the gun unnecessary for protection.

As for alcohol, I'd be for prohibition if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't work from experience. There are many cases around the world where national gun control has worked and provides a safer society for the people who live there (ie the UK). I care about the actual result in this respect.
 
Mikkel said:
The theory is that if we put restrictions on gun ownership, the accessability of guns to criminals will diminish, therefore the need for security will be lessened, thereby making the gun unnecessary for protection.
Click to expand...

So you think that people who legitmately own guns should give them up before the criminals do?

As for alcohol, I'd be for prohibition if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't work from experience. There are many cases around the world where national gun control has worked and provides a safer society for the people who live there (ie the UK).[/QUOTE]

This is not true overall. The UK had a lower gun-death rate than us before there was gun controll.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. You can put together a nice graph showing me that doing random unconstitutional searches on people will also make us safer. It doesn't mean I'm going to support it.
 
I'm not asking anyone to give up guns 'first'. I don't want random unconstitutional searches. I'm all for privacy as much as the next person. To me, gun ownership is not a matter of privacy when it causes so much public mayhem every year.

I'm also not advocating full and indiscriminate gun control either. I just don't think it is necessary to have an M16 to defend you and your loved ones. The only non-military use for a gun like that, in my opinion, is to have another Waco. I guess it just bothers me when idealogues go to the exteme right field even if it contradicts their common sense.
 
Okay, you don't want unconstitutional random searches. Try to think about why that is. What if I supported these searches, and came up to you with correct data and graphs from other countries with these searches, and I said, "look - we have all this Mayhem in our country because we don't allow searches." I can also say "hey - if you're innocent, it certainly won't bother you to have these searches which can take only a few seconds".

What would your argument against that be? Why don't the arguments you come up with apply to gun control?
 
I'd let the government search my place right now if they wanted to. I'm against the principle of searches because they infringe upon our civil liberties. I know, I know, guns are a part of our civil liberties, but I guess I don't consider them to be at the top of the list, know what I mean? I think of liberties as 'inalienable rights', as in, rights that we are granted simply for existing. Somehow people existed without guns for thousands of years. I agree that people have the right to governmentally provided security, and they certainly have the right to protect themselves, but I just don't see guns as a necessary part of that.
 
I can see your point Mikkel, but looking back at even what the founding fathers had said about guns:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson.

Guns were not just for hunting and self-protection. The second amendment was put in place to defend ourselves against our own government. It's a bit of a scary and possibly treasonous thought to buy and own a gun solely as protection from our government.

Jefferson also said:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Jefferson spoke of the need to keep the checks and balances not just between the president/court/congress trifecta, but between that and the populous.

Should the government ever go out of control, it's the citizens' duty to overthrow the government. That's what the founding fathers were making sure to secure.

OK, having said all that... Do I own a gun? No. Will I ever? No. I detest guns. I can't stand them and wish that no one owned them. Problems should be able to be solved without them. Hunters should be hunting with a bow and arrow as a gun, well, that's lazy. At the same time, those are my opinions and I'm not one to force my opinions on others. As such, I do believe in gun ownership for all citizens as granted by the second amendment.
 
That's the best argument for gun ownership I've heard in a long time, shuamort.
 
Look at Canada they are a gun crazy country, but yet they do not have the problems with murders like we here in America do. So it is not reasonable to blame the gun for shooting someone. If a murderer really wanted to kill you he/she would just stab you to death with a knife.
 
I'd have to respond to that by saying that in Canada, hunting is a big national sport for them, something that isn't as common in the united states. This means that the gun ratio is much higher there than it is here. Also, they have fewer large cities, where most of the gun deaths in American occur, thereby decreasing the number of overall gun deaths in their country. The comparison to canada is not the most apt one.
 
"Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game."-Andy Rooney
 
I have a problem with gun cotrol laws. One why do we have gun safe zones? Did you know that most major shootouts and massacres happen in gunsafe zines? If someone in a gang or just some phsyco wants to carry a gone into a 7-11 I don't think he's going to look at the gunsafe zone sign and say "O well I'll just leave my AK 47 out here and ask nicely if I can take all there money" Its ridiculous. If that same person wants to buy that same AK 47 hes not going to say "O wait i cant buy that gun in full auto it's against the law, and I wouldn't want to brake the law that I always follow to the letter, O WAIT I'M CRIMINAL THE VERY DEFENITION OF WHAT I AM IS SOMEONE WHO BRAKES THE LAW" Now I don't want to sound like some baligernet hick who walks around barefoot with a 12 gauge on my back and says that my rights are being taken away. Im just trying to saying.
 
And by the way I;m not a democrat, republican, or libretarian
Im nuetral
 
I took that quiz and aparrently im a libertarian personal70% economic80%
 
Anyone who thinks the US military or National Guard, which is the US military, is the "militia" is a total and complete ignorant fool....
 
A couple of days ago the first officer died in the line of duty in New York.

Guess how he was killed?

A man with a gun shot him.


Legalizing guns and handing them out to everyone won't help in cases like this or in cases period, it'll only add to the problem
 
Che said:
A couple of days ago the first officer died in the line of duty in New York.

Guess how he was killed?

A man with a gun shot him.


Legalizing guns and handing them out to everyone won't help in cases like this or in cases period, it'll only add to the problem
Click to expand...

No one is saying that murder should be legal. Murder and gun ownership are separate issues. There are gun laws now and this incident still happen. They will happen whether there are gun laws or not. The point is that there are responsible people who should be allowed to own guns without government interference.

There are lots of things that can kill people, should they all be illegal? People who want to kill are going to do it with or without a gun.

To say "Legalizing guns and handing them out to everyone won't help in cases like this or in cases period, it'll only add to the problem" is such an exaggeration that any rational adult cannot respond.
 
Che said:
A couple of days ago the first officer died in the line of duty in New York.

Guess how he was killed?

A man with a gun shot him.


Legalizing guns and handing them out to everyone won't help in cases like this or in cases period, it'll only add to the problem
Click to expand...
No one is handing out guns? Nor would any gun laws keep guns out of a criminals hands. Because no matter what law is in place, it still can't keep somone from owning a gun illegally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom