What kind of Conservative are you?

[oldpink]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tombs again.

I constantly remind people on facebook that Reagan gave the Liberals the assault rifle ban they want, and that Reagan was no friend to the firearm owner. Esp to the meme that Reagan was shot and did not ban guns.

While the ban on newly manufactured fully automatic guns is distasteful, it's interesting how the main part of McClure-Volkmer that legalized selling gun parts, ammo, and reloading components via mail order is studiously ignored.
It would have been nice if the famously anti-gun Rep. Hughes hadn't gotten away with slipping in the newly manufactured full auto ban, but let's get real here and just admit that it was a far bigger win for the average gun owner to be able to buy ammo and gun parts without being forced to go directly to a brick-and-mortar for the privilege.
People in my income bracket simply cannot justify spending multiple thousands (in the case of a Thompson 192x and many others, tens of thousands) for what is (let's not kid ourselves here) essentially a novelty gun, but we certainly can and do justify being able to go online with MidwayUSA, Natchez, and scores of other outlets and replenish our reloading component supplies.

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually Unless you have Army supply lines behind you, full auto is a waste of ammo. For fun out on a range for a day it is cool to some and they should be able to have fun, (that silly pursuit of happiness thingy). Personally I don't get the kick out of it that I did when you or your father was paying for the ammo. Nightfire with 30 M60's in a Lazy W interlocking fire with full tracer is cool as h-e-double tooth picks. That is called final protective fire with the key word being final.

Marksmanship trumps full auto fire. Aimed three round bursts can be effective, but the M16A3 didn't last all that long and fire discipline s***** when I was in. Ammo redistribution works in a platoon or company situation, but Riggs and Murtaugh always ran out and didn't even use the same ammo. John McLain was down to two rounds because he had sprayed indiscriminate fire all over the place.

I believe that we should be able to buy and own any full auto we want, but I would hardly call call FOPA

the largest infringement of the second amendment in this nation's history.

All infringements are heinous.

 

[indiucky]

It's weird how my comment was taken as some sort of rude jab, that was certainly not what I was intending. I'm not an atheist, I have my beliefs like anyone else.

I guess the area of difference is in what we view as evidence. Sorry.

Accepted...I think it was the "open a dictionary" line that came across as a "rude jab"....You see I'm from southern Indiana...I had to google what a dictionary was....

 

[ATM]

IOW, we have to destroy the nation so that we can save it.

Just keep voting for the 2 party system, they've nearly destroyed it already.

 

[oldpink]

Just keep voting for the 2 party system, they've nearly destroyed it already.

Just keep hoping for the total collapse of the entire republic, as all good libertarians do, then wonder why those who can actually think find that sort of rationale so ****ing blinkered.

 

[ATM]

Just keep hoping for the total collapse of the entire republic, as all good libertarians do, then wonder why those who can actually think find that sort of rationale so ****ing blinkered.

Don't confuse rationale with hope or desire. Things collapse when abused and history is replete with examples. Recognizing this isn't evil, denying it would be.

You seem to be trying to project fault on libertarians for some reason, are you sure they're the ones who have done this to our republic?

 

[oldpink]

Don't confuse rationale with hope or desire. Things collapse when abused and history is replete with examples. Recognizing this isn't evil, denying it would be.

You seem to be trying to project fault on libertarians for some reason, are you sure they're the ones who have done this to our republic?

I would say that hoping to bring about total collapse of the republic as an opportunity for a political philosophy is indistinguishable from the goals of anarchists and extremist left-wingers, whether high-minded libertarians are willing or able to recognize it or not.

 

[Tombs]

I would say that hoping to bring about total collapse of the republic as an opportunity for a political philosophy is indistinguishable from the goals of anarchists and extremist left-wingers, whether high-minded libertarians are willing or able to recognize it or not.

Because it is anarchy? Anarcho-capitalism.

 

[BugI02]

Of the two, she may be more likely to put the pedal to the metal and topple this precarious and artificially supported house of cards so painstakingly and incrementally constructed for the last several generations. She's more likely to disobey her handlers and push too far.

Of the two, Trump may be may be more likely to continue kicking the can down the road and raping what benefits he and his cronies can, prolonging the inevitable collapse with continued incrementalism.

One of these scenarios leads more quickly to the collapse of the centralized national cartel known as the U.S. government.

A collapsed government is a limited government.

So, then, can we say Syria is currently enjoying the 'benefits' of limited government

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just keep voting for the 2 party system, they've nearly destroyed it already.

There's nothing false in this statement

 

[jamil]

Just keep voting for the 2 party system, they've nearly destroyed it already.

There's nothing false in this statement

Yes there is. The two party system is alive and well. People are dissatisfied with their choices now but they don't associate the dissatisfaction with the two party system. Try to suggest a more representative voting system to the average schmuck. They look at you like you're anti-American.

 

[2A_Tom]

A collapsed government is a limited government.

So, then, can we say Syria is currently enjoying the 'benefits' of limited government

The absence of a constituted government creates a vacuum that invites dictators and warlords. Independence would be by strict natural law. The survival of the fittest.

Fight for:

• food
• territory
• life
• sex
• existence

The problem is the selfishness that is libertarianism (the desire to be left alone and leave others alone) will be trumped by the selfishness that is the desire to dominate others.

 

[ATM]

The absence of a constituted government creates a vacuum that invites dictators and warlords.

No, the absence of a dictator/warlord in a society dependent upon a centralized authoritarian regime creates a vacuum for the same. An independent and prosperous decentralized society is actually rather difficult to conquer.

Independence would be by strict natural law. The survival of the fittest.

Fight for:

• food
• territory
• life
• sex
• existence

Yes, natural law is good and proper. it is the natural state of things. Survival of the independent and interdependent via voluntary interactions, with no entity assigned the role of official public robber or murderer.

The problem is the selfishness that is libertarianism (the desire to be left alone and leave others alone) will be trumped by the selfishness that is the desire to dominate others.

Why do you say this? Is there some arbitrary limit you've imposed upon the voluntary society's means or willingness to defend against those who desire to move in and dominate them?

Is it because the current regime always make doing so illegal? Acclimating a society to being ruled simply makes them more ripe for perpetual servitude, which is why regime changes are so much easier than actually conquering independent societies. To change a regime you merely have to take over the centralized power infrastructure the people of that region have been conditioned to depend on.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes there is. The two party system is alive and well. People are dissatisfied with their choices now but they don't associate the dissatisfaction with the two party system. Try to suggest a more representative voting system to the average schmuck. They look at you like you're anti-American.

I see what you're saying, but the lack of choices outside of the platforms of the major parties sucks.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why do you say this? Is there some arbitrary limit you've imposed upon the voluntary society's means or willingness to defend against those who desire to move in and dominate them?

How do you constitute your independent society?

How would someone join your independent society?

When another independent society, stronger than yours, decides they want your women and stuff how do you defens yourself?

I tend to believe that I have enough skills to survive a while but ultimately I will be killed by the independent society that decides I am not worthy to live.

ATM not many are as willing as you to let live. There will always be oppressors.

 

[ATM]

How do you constitute your independent society?

How would someone join your independent society?

When another independent society, stronger than yours, decides they want your women and stuff how do you defens yourself?

I tend to believe that I have enough skills to survive a while but ultimately I will be killed by the independent society that decides I am not worthy to live.

ATM not many are as willing as you to let live. There will always be oppressors.

You seem to be suggesting that those with the means and willingness to defend America and our heritage of self governance would simply evaporate without the U.S. federal government, that we'd all revert to murderous raping barbarians without a powerful centralized ruling class demanding a monopoly on such practices.

Is it easier to deal with would-be oppressors at the local level or national level? Where is accountability and justice more assured?

 

[oldpink]

You seem to be suggesting that those with the means and willingness to defend America and our heritage of self governance would simply evaporate without the U.S. federal government, that we'd all revert to murderous raping barbarians without a powerful centralized ruling class demanding a monopoly on such practices.

Is it easier to deal with would-be oppressors at the local level or national level? Where is accountability and justice more assured?

Your faith in the average human's altruism, while admirable, is naive in the extreme.
Millenia of recorded human history (and doubtless hundreds of millenia unrecorded before that) would indicate otherwise.
Humans require some kind of moral guidance to do good -- following the Golden Rule -- consistently.
Left to their own devices without that guidance, humans inevitably devolve to their base nature.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
-Federalist No. 51

 

[Tombs]

You seem to be suggesting that those with the means and willingness to defend America and our heritage of self governance would simply evaporate without the U.S. federal government, that we'd all revert to murderous raping barbarians without a powerful centralized ruling class demanding a monopoly on such practices.

Is it easier to deal with would-be oppressors at the local level or national level? Where is accountability and justice more assured?

Those same people who have the means to be independent and survive, after a period of months of doing anything imaginable so that their family can survive, might care a little less about political philosophy than you do.

Food for thought.

 

[jamil]

The absence of a constituted government creates a vacuum that invites dictators and warlords. Independence would be by strict natural law. The survival of the fittest.

Fight for:

• food
• territory
• life
• sex
• existence

The problem is the selfishness that is libertarianism (the desire to be left alone and leave others alone) will be trumped by the selfishness that is the desire to dominate others.

I think ATM envisions some kind of ordered society without "rulers", but not without rules. But I'm not convinced that what he envisions wouldn't devolve into a sort of Mad Max situation.

The second part is totally inaccurate. I don't believe libertarianism has anything to do with selfishness the way you've implied. Instead it recognizes the true human nature, that we all have an innate instinct of self interested. Ayn Rand liked to use "selfish" to describe that but she clearly indicated what she meant by that. It's not the sort of immoral covetous yearning for other people's stuff. It's essentially self interest in more of a self preservational sense.

Self preservation is made civil by rules we all agree to, but those rules can't at the same time limit natural rights. In that sense I would define a natural right as that which you can do without colliding with other people's rights, and causing other people harm.

While I agree with ATM that we don't necessarily need a "ruler" for that, a state with boundaries and some power to facilitate and enforce the agreement and protect against people outside of those who agree that would cause the group harm.

I see what you're saying, but the lack of choices outside of the platforms of the major parties sucks.

Yep. We have the lack of choices because the natural conclusion of the way we vote makes voting for tertiary parties impractical.

How do you constitute your independent society?

How would someone join your independent society?

When another independent society, stronger than yours, decides they want your women and stuff how do you defens yourself?

I tend to believe that I have enough skills to survive a while but ultimately I will be killed by the independent society that decides I am not worthy to live.

ATM not many are as willing as you to let live. There will always be oppressors.

The main problem I have with anarco-capitalism is that it is impractical in this world in the state of human cultures.

You seem to be suggesting that those with the means and willingness to defend America and our heritage of self governance would simply evaporate without the U.S. federal government, that we'd all revert to murderous raping barbarians without a powerful centralized ruling class demanding a monopoly on such practices.

Is it easier to deal with would-be oppressors at the local level or national level? Where is accountability and justice more assured?

We don't need a powerful centralized ruling class per se. I think we do need a powerful enough state, if you want to call it that, to facilitate and enforce a social contract.

 

[jamil]

Your faith in the average human's altruism, while admirable, is naive in the extreme.
Millenia of recorded human history (and doubtless hundreds of millenia unrecorded before that) would indicate otherwise.
Humans require some kind of moral guidance to do good -- following the Golden Rule -- consistently.
Left to their own devices without that guidance, humans inevitably devolve to their base nature.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
-Federalist No. 51

As a libertarian he wouldn't believe in human's altruism. At all. He would believe in a human's ability to recognize that he needs to survive, the logical conclusion of which is a system of living free while letting others to live free. Every successful collection of humans depends on some common goals. He's just saying that common goals don't need to be mandated by an centralized authority, especially one which doesn't give you much choice on what is common and what is mandated.