"Your rights end where mine begin" (1 Viewer)

[YoungConserv]

In short, Somalia is a libertarian paradise. No taxes, no government interference, no gun control. Everybody has a gun (or is dead).

What's not to like (except the chaos, endless violence and gang rule!)?

I think your confusing Libertarianism with anarky.

 

[sangha]

There is a difference between Libertarian philosophy and anarchy.

True!

Anarchic systems exist. Libertarian ones do not

 

[Dittohead not!]

True!

Anarchic systems exist. Libertarian ones do not

Ours was designed to be that way, but people have allowed big, authoritarian government to crop up anyway. What a pity.

 

[sangha]

Ours was designed to be that way, but people have allowed big, authoritarian government to crop up anyway. What a pity.

Yes, a bunch of people who were not libertarians created a system that was libertarian :doh

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, a bunch of people who were not libertarians created a system that was libertarian :doh

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Sounds like a blueprint for a Libertarian government to me.

 

[sangha]

Sounds like a blueprint for a Libertarian government to me.

Which demonstrates that libertarians don't really have a clue.

That sentence does not establish a govt of any kind.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Which demonstrates that libertarians don't really have a clue.

That sentence does not establish a govt of any kind.

No, but it does define the purpose of government.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Hello, this is my first post, thanks for the forum!

I have been reading a lot of comments in the online news stories about the current gun debate. I am a gun owner and am rather passionate about the subject, as I am about any issue that relates to our rights in this country. One of the lines I keep seeing over and over is, "Your rights end where mine begin". I believe the original quote is "Your right to swing your arms ends where the other man's nose begins", or something like that. People are implying that my right to own a particular type of gun ends when it jeopardizes their safety. As a believer in the Constitution as it was written, I explain that my rights do not end unless I infringe on your rights. I could lose my right to own a gun if I use it in a crime, but having it in my home does not infringe on anyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How can it be explained in simple terms to these people that they don't have the right to remove my rights just because they don't like something that I do. I'd like to know what the folks here have to say about it, because to me it seems like common sense, but these people don't seem to get it.

Hm - how is it used on regard to firearm ownership? I've seen it used often RE abortion . . . I don't see how it applies otherwise unless you're arguing that you have the right to kill them - which you don't . . . generally speaking, anyway. Unless we're discussing personal protection. . . in which one of your other rights would have to be hindered, first.

 

[sangha]

No, but it does define the purpose of government.

First, you called it a blueprint.

Now, it's a definition of purpose

And it's certainly not a "libertarian" purpose

 

[Henrin]

Sounds like a blueprint for a Libertarian government to me.

There is a a great deal of differences between how the country was set up at the beginning and a libertarian blueprint. Lets ignore all the right violations like slavery going on and focus on what they wrote. Here is a short list on why the US was not a libertarian blueprint at the start besides the following. Jefferson replaced property with pursuit of happiness, the tenth amendment power scope, eminent domain, copyright laws, and the first amendment only restricts the congress to restrict speech, but permits states to restrict speech. There is a few other examples, but that should do for right now.

 

[head of joaquin]

There is a difference between Libertarian philosophy and anarchy.

Having studied them both, I've concluded not much. Indeed, libertarianism is rather more hypocritical since it only wants government for the protection of property rights, which libertarians privilege because they have property, or live vicariously through the rich, who do. At least anarchists are honest.

 

[head of joaquin]

Sounds like a blueprint for a Libertarian government to me.

To claim that the founders, with their mercantilism, chattle slavery, discrimination against women and the landless, not to mention their slowmotion genocide against native peoples, were libertarians, exposes just why modern societies need to reject it.

 

[head of joaquin]

No, but it does define the purpose of government.

Well, a purpose, not the purpose. Jefferson would not have denied that government should also promote commerce, educate the populace, and drain swamps.


"In November 1776, while a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, Thomas Jefferson was selected to head a committee charged with the task of revising the laws of Virginia, subject to approval by the General Assembly. Although Americans were now at war with Britain, Jefferson believed it vital that Virginia’s legal code be changed in accordance with republican principles, and he devoted much of the next two years to this task.

Among Jefferson’s drafts for new legislation was the celebrated “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” but there was another piece of legislation that Jefferson viewed as even more important: “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge.” [involving establishing public schools]

http://www.libertarianism.org/publi...ions/thomas-jefferson-public-education-part-1

If you want Jefferson's imprimatur on your ideology, you have to take all of him.

 

[head of joaquin]

Ours was designed to be that way, but people have allowed big, authoritarian government to crop up anyway. What a pity.

Yeah, everybody knows that the problem average American's face is Big Gummit, not deregulated financial institutions, or outsourcing by corporations, or union busting by Big Business, or underfunding of infrastructure due to the GOP's fetish against taxing Paris Hilton. It's all about Big Gummit.

Pssst: this is the alternative universe conservative live in.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is a difference between Libertarian philosophy and anarchy.

marxist extremists and"progressives" (the palatable phrase for marxist extremists) are so far from liberty that they don't understand the difference

 

[mak2]

Really?

There is a difference between Libertarian philosophy and anarchy.

 

[Skyrimosity]

I think the antigun people... I think they are just afraid of weapons because they have not been around them.
Let's stop thinking along this line as it is not productive.

As we all know, there has been a huge spiraling of gun violence recently and enough people in this country are very much concerned to the point where they say enough is enough and this has got to stop. period! The fringe element of the gun industry, they honestly believe that if every one has a gun then this society will be heavenly paradise! This it utter nonsense! The more guns out there the more likely there will be gun incidences. That is just a fact of life. What has this country become when guns are in every school? This is absolutely nutty.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. It does not mean that you have the right to have poison gas, a bazooka, etc. although Lapierre's thinking is that the Second Amendment allows you to have any weapon you want. He is dead wrong. The line will be drawn somewhere. No one wants to take away your gun, but at the same time people have the right to be safe from harm. And more guns is not the answer.

Quite frankly the rights of the many supersede the rights of the few--the special interests such as the NRA.
Please allow me to ask you this question, as a gun owner what is your responsibility? I hear a lot of gun owners loudly talk about their rights but keep their mouths shut when it comes to responsibility. Right and responsibility go hand in hand. Is that understood?

Ok now... let's analyze this. The more guns out there the more likely there are to be incidences? That is probably true. However... do you think that the less guns out there will DECREASE incidences? No it won't. As a man in China showed us, it is perfectly possible to attack 20 children with a knife.
http://http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite (I even used worldnews so you couldn't say I'm just high on Fox)

I fail to see how more guns = more harm. That is something, of course, you give no explanation of. The big bad guns cause the big bad crimes. See... this is ALWAYS the problem. People blame the guns but nobody blames the criminals. We need to be focusing in on increasing Mental Health facilities. Now, not everyone with Aspergers goes out and kills 20 children, but he should have been in a Mental Home. Same thing with the Aurora Guy. Now the typical argument that will be issued to me is "But Ronald Reagan hurt the Mental Health facilities!" well I DO NOT CARE. Not a single President since then has done anything to improve them so apparently no one high up thinks they're that big of a deal.

My responsibility as a gun owner is to enjoy the freedom I am given in America. I like to keep a gun with me a lot just in case something happens of course so I also assume it is my responsibility to protect the property I know and the people I love. Calling the police doesn't make a difference if your dead, FYI.

 

[iguanaman]

Let's stop thinking along this line as it is not productive.

As we all know, there has been a huge spiraling of gun violence recently and enough people in this country are very much concerned to the point where they say enough is enough and this has got to stop. period! The fringe element of the gun industry, they honestly believe that if every one has a gun then this society will be heavenly paradise! This it utter nonsense! The more guns out there the more likely there will be gun incidences. That is just a fact of life. What has this country become when guns are in every school? This is absolutely nutty.



The Second Amendment is not absolute. It does not mean that you have the right to have poison gas, a bazooka, etc. although Lapierre's thinking is that the Second Amendment allows you to have any weapon you want. He is dead wrong. The line will be drawn somewhere. No one wants to take away your gun, but at the same time people have the right to be safe from harm. And more guns is not the answer.

Quite frankly the rights of the many supersede the rights of the few--the special interests such as the NRA.
Please allow me to ask you this question, as a gun owner what is your responsibility? I hear a lot of gun owners loudly talk about their rights but keep their mouths shut when it comes to responsibility. Right and responsibility go hand in hand. Is that understood? Ok now... let's analyze this. The more guns out there the more likely there are to be incidences? That is probably true. However... do you think that the less guns out there will DECREASE incidences? No it won't. As a man in China showed us, it is perfectly possible to attack 20 children with a knife.
http://http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite (I even used worldnews so you couldn't say I'm just high on Fox)

I fail to see how more guns = more harm. That is something, of course, you give no explanation of. The big bad guns cause the big bad crimes. See... this is ALWAYS the problem. People blame the guns but nobody blames the criminals. We need to be focusing in on increasing Mental Health facilities. Now, not everyone with Aspergers goes out and kills 20 children, but he should have been in a Mental Home. Same thing with the Aurora Guy. Now the typical argument that will be issued to me is "But Ronald Reagan hurt the Mental Health facilities!" well I DO NOT CARE. Not a single President since then has done anything to improve them so apparently no one high up thinks they're that big of a deal. My responsibility as a gun owner is to enjoy the freedom I am given in America. I like to keep a gun with me a lot just in case something happens of course so I also assume it is my responsibility to protect the property I know and the people I love. Calling the police doesn't make a difference if your dead, FYI.

How many of those children in China died from their wounds? 100% of the children shot in Sandy Hook died on the scene. AR-15 and their vicious ammo are high-speed killing machines and are no comparison to a knife. It is frightening to think of those weapons in the hands of the insane and it just keeps happening. Why do we have to risk this? To sell more guns? It really comes down to a risk vs reward situation where the assault rifle is a loser.

 

[Skyrimosity]

How many of those children in China died from their wounds? 100% of the children shot in Sandy Hook died on the scene. AR-15 and their vicious ammo are high-speed killing machines and are no comparison to a knife. It is frightening to think of those weapons in the hands of the insane and it just keeps happening. Why do we have to risk this? To sell more guns? It really comes down to a risk vs reward situation where the assault rifle is a loser.

I don't know how many children in China died. China is so busy trying to keep a picture perfect rep I doubt anyone but them will ever know. And yes, those children in Sandy Hook died on the scene. It is all that stupid gun's fault... not the psycho-killer. Who would've predicted that'd be said. Oh right... me. In my last post. I for one support the NRA's idea of having armed security guards at schools. Would it completely destroy the entire fabric of the Police Force to send 2-3 armed security guards to every school? They may have been able to stop the Sandy Hook Killer dead in his tracks. We could be talking 5 dead... not 25. Like you said... those weapons are in the hands of the insane. But instead of controlling the gun, we should be trying to control the insane.

The analogy I think of is this: If your child throws a rock and breaks the window, do you scold your child or do you take away his rock? If you take away his rock, he can use a stick. Take away the stick, he'll use anything he can find. The child is like a criminal, the rock is like an assault rifle, the stick a handgun. There are always ways to kill people my friend. You don't try to control the weapon, you try to control the psycho with the weapon.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No the problem is the absurd absolutist claims of gun lovers that nobody can regulate their gun ownership -- a claim that has no basis in fact or American jurisprudence. But then all gun lovers have is emotion and freakish attachment to metal objects.

Ironic post is ironic....


THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! is a common mantra for gun control advocates.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yeah, everybody knows that the problem average American's face is Big Gummit, not deregulated financial institutions, or outsourcing by corporations, or union busting by Big Business, or underfunding of infrastructure due to the GOP's fetish against taxing Paris Hilton. It's all about Big Gummit.

Pssst: this is the alternative universe conservative live in.

That is the purpose of government, to protect my rights. If my rights are being threatened by big business, or deregulated financial institutions then they should be able to protect those rights.

But, the most likely threat to my liberty is the government itself, which is why we have a balance of powers and Constitutional limits on the power of government.

 

[Wayno]

How many of those children in China died from their wounds? 100% of the children shot in Sandy Hook died on the scene. AR-15 and their vicious ammo are high-speed killing machines and are no comparison to a knife. It is frightening to think of those weapons in the hands of the insane and it just keeps happening. Why do we have to risk this? To sell more guns? It really comes down to a risk vs reward situation where the assault rifle is a loser.

You've obviously not spent much time around guns, and seen what a pump action shotgun can do.....

 

[Wayno]

Idiots of the Liberal persuasion saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" a few times, and decided that people with mental illness should be dumped out on the street, and made it almost IMPOSSIBLE to get them institutionalized....

So now that we have people mumbling to themselves, living under overpasses, begging money, and brutally killing children in America.

The Liberal idiot's solution?

"Let's blame the inanimate object."

The largest mass murderer of school children in America didn't even use a gun.

 

[YoungConserv]

How many of those children in China died from their wounds? 100% of the children shot in Sandy Hook died on the scene. AR-15 and their vicious ammo are high-speed killing machines and are no comparison to a knife. It is frightening to think of those weapons in the hands of the insane and it just keeps happening. Why do we have to risk this? To sell more guns? It really comes down to a risk vs reward situation where the assault rifle is a loser.

The ar15 was in the trunk of the car so it killed 0 kids he did all Of that with two pistols.

 

[iguanaman]

The ar15 was in the trunk of the car so it killed 0 kids he did all Of that with two pistols.

The veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. In what appeared to be an uncomfortable moment for Carver, he said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle, one of at least two weapons Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old suspected shooter, used to commit one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.

Medical examiner: all Sandy Hook victims died of multiple gunshot wounds | The Lookout - Yahoo! News