Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More shootings...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by skooly View Post

    Does anyone want to argue there should be no legal limits on dangerous instrumentalities?

    My understanding is that libertarians abhor any restrictions. But how do you protect society at large from these extremely dangerous items? Serious question, is it possible to reconcile libertarian philosophy with State enforced limits?
    That's patently untrue. We just abhor restrictions made by governments. Absent government, restrictions still exist.

    In the case of guns, it's quite possible that government is actually causing fewer restrictions that might ordinarily arise. A gun seller, for example, cannot use his own discretion to choose not to sell to certain people for fear of accusations discrimination by race, poverty, age, etc. Government is preventing "common sense gun control" when it comes to seller's discretion as to whom to sell to. It is also government action that is shielding gun sellers from liability. So under the current paradigm, a gun seller can get in trouble for not selling to a questionable buyer, but cannot get in trouble for selling to a questionable buyer (provided he runs the required checks), so the default is "sale happens." That's a failure of government, pure and simple. We'd be far better off without it.

    There are plenty of very dangerous things that operate with little or no government control. For example, while explosives like dynamite are covered loosely by federal law, the industry's own standards largely govern who gets dynamite and other explosives, and under what circumstances, and you'd better believe that if a seller supplies an obviously inappropriate buyer, he's going to be liable. And, just like guns, I can buy explosives for recreation or for function, but I need to be reputable, go through a proper process, and be accountable.

    The 2nd Amendment screws that up. It prevents even dynamite level regulation of guns, and also prevents industry level regulation of guns. The other thing that screws it up is raving gun-haters. One of the reasons nobody objects to a bit of dynamite regulation here and there is that nobody is worried that whackjob lefties want to take all their dynamite away.

    Pete (thinks guns should be a little bit harder to get, but thinks most Americans wouldn't like the way that would look)
    Last edited by Plezercruz; 08-10-2019, 10:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy
      I'm a lot more worried about the commies running DC than I am about commies half way around the world.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
        In the case of guns, it's quite possible that government is actually causing fewer restrictions that might ordinarily arise. A gun seller, for example, cannot use his own discretion to choose not to sell to certain people for fear of accusations discrimination by race, poverty, age, etc. Government is preventing "common sense gun control" when it comes to seller's discretion as to whom to sell to. It is also government action that is shielding gun sellers from liability. So under the current paradigm, a gun seller can get in trouble for not selling to a questionable buyer, but cannot get in trouble for selling to a questionable buyer (provided he runs the required checks), so the default is "sale happens." That's a failure of government, pure and simple. We'd be far better off without it.
        BS - (provided he runs the required checks) is the only importance of this situation.
        Or more importantly a check that isn't reliant upon different laws of different parts of the country, where having to do such things doesn't matter.

        01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by skooly View Post

          Obama was a failure when it came to gun control. He did nothing but allow a mild expansion of gun rights. Of course, he blew his wad on health care and simply didn't have the political capital to take on the gun lobby at the time the Dems held Congressional majorities. On the other hand, the AWB was passed under a Dem presidency and has been a longstanding position of the party, so I reject any attempt to characterize political failures as a lack of authenticity. The Republican party of the last 20 years has consistently fought any attempt at gun control and only passed such measures in the wake of tragedies when public pressure forced them to. I would put the blame for the shitty state of our gun laws mostly on them.

          ARs today are being used today for their intended purpose: to shoot large amounts of people very quickly. Is it any wonder why the worst of the mass shootings involve an AR of some sort? When was the last time a headline read Man with AR Saves Crowd of People? Although Heller put theoretical limits on what firearms government is allowed to permit or restrict, what today's Supreme Court would say about ARs is anybody's guess, but I'm not blind and I know the Court's makeup is not favorable for my position.
          https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/...d-lives-ar-15/

          https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...herland-church

          Even with an AR ban, there will be VT handgun type mass murders that was #3 worst without AR involvement. You want Japan/UK type gun control. Not going to happen in our lifetime. Those countries still have mass killings regardless with things like Sarin gas.

          Dems lost Congress after AWB. The reality is Americans want their guns. As out of touch the media was about Trump, they’re just as out of touch about guns. Remember how if you watched CNN and MSNBC you were certain about a Hillary Presidency? Well they’re just as certain that ARs are evil incarnate, that ARs are to blame rather than the person using the weapon. You’ve been “brainwashed” by media to think this is about ARs. It’s not about ARs. It’s about criminals, mental insanity, neo-Nazis, those that have been bullied among others. It’s about people with serious problems that are doing seriously bad things to other people.

          Dan (suggests you repeat “guns are not the devil” as a deprogramming mantra)
          HFM

          As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

          Comment


          • #80




            Click image for larger version

Name:	vt36cbb4dnf31.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	157.9 KB
ID:	511498
            01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by skooly View Post

              Although Heller put theoretical limits on what firearms government is allowed to permit or restrict, what today's Supreme Court would say about ARs is anybody's guess, but I'm not blind and I know the Court's makeup is not favorable for my position.
              I lost the drunken frat boy image the media gave me about Kavanaugh after reading his dissent in this matter.

              https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/deca496973477c748525791f004d84f9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

              His analysis of Heller included a text, history and tradition test rejecting intermediate scrutiny. And, if not that standard of reviewing by history, then by strict scrutiny. P.29. Pages 34-41 discuss his 2A opinion regarding semi-auto rifles/ARs and, coincides with my analysis and conclusion that ARs are protected by 2A.

              Dan (expects Kavanaugh to write the majority opinion on the next gun control challenge)
              HFM

              As long as there exists people with religion and a belief in God, there will never be a Libertarian state.

              Comment


              • #82
                You know what the good part is that's totally lost on the gun grabbers? You know what stops the gun grabber from grabbing the guns? The guns do.

                Steve (can't imaging the hellhole of wonderful ideas we would live in if not for the fact we are one of the last nations on earth where we haven't lost the right to defend ourselves from the mob of assholes and that assholes are too emotionally dense to realize how better they off they are because of something they hate)
                "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                Comment


                • #83
                  Once they take everything else, those guns will be next. Good luck on that one.
                  01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20...shooting-trump

                    Walmart denies report that it’s taking violent video games off shelves

                    The company is removing signage and other ads for some games

                    IGN reported this afternoon that Walmart is pulling violent video games from shelves, but the retailer confirmed to The Verge that it has not directed stores to remove them or halt sales. Instead, the company is removing signage, advertisements, and demos for some video games featuring violence and firearms in the wake of the El Paso mass shooting this past weekend.

                    “We’ve taken this action out of respect for the incidents of the past week, and it does not reflect a long-term change in our video game assortment,” a company spokesperson told The Verge. “We are focused on assisting our associates and their families, as well as supporting the community, as we continue a thoughtful and thorough review of our policies.”

                    The spokesperson reiterated that this does not pertain to removing games from shelves; games, including violent, M-rated titles featuring firearms, are still available. The Verge was able to confirm that one store, located in Berlin, Vermont, was still selling games like Call of Duty, Red Dead Redemption II, and other titles featuring violence and firearms.
                    Pete (also notes the photo posted above was from a store closing sale several years ago and has nothing to do with this move)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Beemer View Post
                      Once they take everything else, those guns will be next. Good luck on that one.
                      If it could have been done, it would have happened under Obama. That's another thing you don't realize. Guns aren't great for fighting the government. NOBODY wants that. What they are really great for is deterring the government. Or you could move to England where unapproved political speech lands you in prison. You can call the POTUS Fat Orange Cheeto Jesus with impunity in America. The rest of the Bill of Rights is worthless without the 2A and the only reason we still maintain even the pretense that the BOA has power is because we have the most powerful populace of any 1st world country on the planet.

                      The gun grabbing emotionals are so afraid of guns they want to monopolize guns in the hands of those who have proven the absolutely least trustworthy entity to have them. Talk about stupid as fuck, but thank the great spaghetti monster their rage is impotent.
                      "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                        That's patently untrue. We just abhor restrictions made by governments. Absent government, restrictions still exist.

                        In the case of guns, it's quite possible that government is actually causing fewer restrictions that might ordinarily arise. A gun seller, for example, cannot use his own discretion to choose not to sell to certain people for fear of accusations discrimination by race, poverty, age, etc. Government is preventing "common sense gun control" when it comes to seller's discretion as to whom to sell to. It is also government action that is shielding gun sellers from liability. So under the current paradigm, a gun seller can get in trouble for not selling to a questionable buyer, but cannot get in trouble for selling to a questionable buyer (provided he runs the required checks), so the default is "sale happens." That's a failure of government, pure and simple. We'd be far better off without it.

                        There are plenty of very dangerous things that operate with little or no government control. For example, while explosives like dynamite are covered loosely by federal law, the industry's own standards largely govern who gets dynamite and other explosives, and under what circumstances, and you'd better believe that if a seller supplies an obviously inappropriate buyer, he's going to be liable. And, just like guns, I can buy explosives for recreation or for function, but I need to be reputable, go through a proper process, and be accountable.

                        The 2nd Amendment screws that up. It prevents even dynamite level regulation of guns, and also prevents industry level regulation of guns. The other thing that screws it up is raving gun-haters. One of the reasons nobody objects to a bit of dynamite regulation here and there is that nobody is worried that whackjob lefties want to take all their dynamite away.

                        Pete (thinks guns should be a little bit harder to get, but thinks most Americans wouldn't like the way that would look)
                        Thanks, this was a very thoughtful post. I agree with you that government laws are unjustifiably shielding gun manufacturers from liability. However, I think it's fanciful to conclude the private sector would come up with a uniform set of fair and effective restrictions. At best, I think there would be a hodge podge of individual and wildly different restrictions among sellers, some effective, and some probably not. Maybe there would be unscrupulous fly-by-night vendors or offshore sellers who would flaunt all restrictions because they are beyond the reach of our Courts. Query whether civil liability, which you seem to endorse, is a form of gun control?

                        Explosives requires all sorts of ATF licenses and permits and appear to be heavily regulated.
                        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy View Post
                          You know what the good part is that's totally lost on the gun grabbers? You know what stops the gun grabber from grabbing the guns? The guns do.

                          Steve (can't imaging the hellhole of wonderful ideas we would live in if not for the fact we are one of the last nations on earth where we haven't lost the right to defend ourselves from the mob of assholes and that assholes are too emotionally dense to realize how better they off they are because of something they hate)
                          Your vote is more powerful than any rifle in your cabinet, but the anarchists and libertarians don't know much about it.

                          You may consider the regular mass slaughter of innocent people an acceptable price to pay for weapons of war on the streets, but I don't.
                          "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by skooly View Post

                            Your vote is more powerful than any rifle in your cabinet, but the anarchists and libertarians don't know much about it.

                            You may consider the regular mass slaughter of innocent people an acceptable price to pay for weapons of war on the streets, but I don't.
                            You may consider 10 people drowning a day in pools an acceptable price for being able to swim, but I don't. Ban pools now!

                            Steve (laughs at skooly's continued appeals to emotion and poor math skills)

                            "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X