Assault weapon bans

[TheButterZone]

Condensed version: government was given an inch, in the form of the US Constitution. As the US Constitution has no magical ability to enforce itself, the government subsequently took googolplex light years, and could only be more totalitarian if it started filling mass graves.

[Biomech]

What this debate, and all debates on politics, boil down to is thus:

Are you pro-freedom, or pro-authority?

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything, as government does not pick and choose what any single individual believes should be up to the individual or not; it just sucks in everyone's thoughts on what government should regulate and regulates everything, including the things certain people don't want it to regulate.  It's easier to add law, than to take away, as every law gives government that much more power over its citizens, and the bigger it gets, the harder it is to counteract it: this is the pro-authority stance, the same perspective that has given us the dysfunctional American government of today.

However, it is my belief that, if democracy is functional, then that means people are functional without democracy, for if democracy is necessary, the people are dysfunctional without it, and thus, democracy cannot work with a dysfunctional people as it requires its people to actually be able to think and participate, and if they could think and participate, they would already be doing so without the help of democracy.  So, I take a pro-freedom stance, as I do not believe people require a higher power to be told what to do and how to do it; it is in my belief that people readily have their self-interest in mind, which is eroded when they are told they cannot think for themselves as only government can tell them what's best for them (e.g. "We must ban all the guns", or even the unlikely "We must not ban all the guns"; it doesn't matter, since people already know what they want), and so a dependency is created.

If ever there is a time where you say, "We have to ban X because it's just obvious/for our own good/people can't figure it out on their own", remember it's people who make democracy function, making this statement redundant, for it assumes people both can and cannot think for themselves (or rather, the person saying this has taken an authoritative stance in the assumption that he is more intelligent/powerful than his peers.)  The only explanation to this idea is that government is not by the people, but its own entity, making its own laws in its own benefit through corrupt politicians and business owners, and the pro-authority individual just loves the idea of manipulating this system for their own benefit, even at, or ignoring, the expense of others.

Yes, guns are made to kill people.  But remember that it's through guns that we ban guns, and if you believe guns should be banned, you must absolutely believe government should disappear, and yet this is the dissonance I constantly hear in these arguments, because you cannot be pro-authority and anti-gun; in fact, pro-authority individuals require guns, they absolutely love the idea of guns, or else their authoritative stance simply disappears: nobody cares about the demands of an unarmed individual.  If you believe citizens should be banned from having guns, but government should still have them, this only reinforces the idea that government is not of the people; it is its own entity, passing laws for its own needs, made even more easy as there's close to a 0% chance they'll be overthrown.

Please, for the love of Christ, anti-gun proponents, lose the ambivalence and understand what it is you're asking for: you cannot be in favor of politics and against guns and killing, for politics necessitates the other; you cannot, ever, ever, ever, have both a powerful and benevolent government, for that power stems from their ability to kill, with guns, and tanks, and missiles, etc.  The government with the ability to ban guns is the government with all the guns and is using them, often.

Thank you! I could not have said it better!

My stance is that democracy (mob rule) is actually the most tyrannical system every conceived. I am an anarchist, with the views you just expressed (other than a love of Christ ) But if I absolutely HAVE to live under a government, I would prefer an open oligarchy with at least SOME boundaries other than just the manipulation of the majority. That's easy, for any demagogue.

[zeta1]

Another sad incident today....

[zeta1]

Another sad incident today....

...in a gun free zone!

The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons.

I think it would be better to have a unified gun law in the entire US. it doesn't make sense that you cant take a gun with you in one district but can easily get one in another

[kokjo]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Then tell me the alternative to either being in favor of politics, or not; not caring about politics does not change the fact that it is there.

No, that was not your original statement. That statement you just wrote is an instantiation of the law of noncontradiction(you can't care and not care at the same time), and black-or-white logic is then applicable.
This statement on the other hand is not:

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

It's a fallacy. I really hope you can see why.

It's not; in fact, I explain, in the very next sentence, how being in favor of any government leads to being in favor of all government.  You do not get to pick and choose which government you want to be apart of, and which parts you do not; if the majority believes smoking should be banned, smoking is banned, despite how smokers feel.  If those same smokers and the majoirty believe abortion should be banned, both abortions and smoking are banned.  So on and so forth.  To believe in government, is to subject yourself to every law; you cannot be pro-authority and not accept all authority.  To be pro-authority is to subject yourself to everyone elses authority (also handed to the central government), and if you feel, just one thing, just one tiny little thing needs to be banned, you must accept all other bans as fair, or accept none, not even your own proposed ban.

If you seek government to get your way, you are pro-authority, no matter what you believe government should have authority over.  To be pro-freedom is to not believe coercion is right, and as all government is coercion, you cannot believe in rulers to be in favor of freedom; this means:

You must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything.

And by the way, you're ignoring the rest of my post.  Stop nit-picking and actually take the entire argument into consideration.

NO. In a democracy the people can choose to limit the state's authority. I can be for a government that allow free speech(even for them who speeks against the government) and a lot of personal freedom, I can be for a governement that allow its citizins to be a gay nazi jew libertard, if thats what they want to be. That government can also be pro-taxes, which i think is a good thing, and i will support it. BUT i will not support a government that kills its citizens, limits its citizins personal freedoms substantially, and is against free speech.
Now may you that its still a democracy, and everyone is then subjected to superior and unlimited authority of the majority. But you know what? You would still be that in a libertarian society, no matter how anarchistic it is. If the majority decides something, they decide something. No matter how much you stand on your ridiculous moral high ground, they would still get their will. You would still be subject to the "tyranny" of the majority.

I can support some authority, but reject other forms of it. I might not get my will, but at least i tried.

Please stop using your black-or-white fallacies now.

[Rassah]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

Libertard - "You are either against murder, or you are pro-murder!"

Kokjo - "I'm against murder, but I'm for some murder."

Yeah, the gray area/middle of the road thing doesn't work here.

[Rassah]

NO. In a democracy the people can choose to limit the state's authority. I can be for a government that allow free speech(even for them who speeks against the government) and a lot of personal freedom, I can be for a governement that allow its citizins to be a gay nazi jew libertard, if thats what they want to be. That government can also be pro-taxes, which i think is a good thing, and i will support it. BUT i will not support a government that kills its citizens, limits its citizins personal freedoms substantially, and is against free speech.

And yet, if the majority decides not to limit its authority, or decides to limit personal freedoms, free speech, and even be ok with killing its citizens, then you're SOL, because, as Mike has said, you have accepted its authority, and thus must submit to ALL of its authority.

Now may you that its still a democracy, and everyone is then subjected to superior and unlimited authority of the majority. But you know what? You would still be that in a libertarian society, no matter how anarchistic it is. If the majority decides something, they decide something. No matter how much you stand on your ridiculous moral high ground, they would still get their will. You would still be subject to the "tyranny" of the majority.

And this is why I, and likely Mike, as well as other anarchist, think that libertarians still don't go far enough. As Mike said in his post, those who give any authority to government by default agree to submit to all of it. So, you are right, libertarians would still have the problem of allowing a majority to decide some things, and would still end up having issues to being "subject to the 'tyranny' of the majority." That's why we're not libertarians. (P.S. We agree with that part, and we don't know whom you're talking to with that paragraph).

[kokjo]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

Libertard - "You are either against murder, or you are pro-murder!"

Kokjo - "I'm against murder, but I'm for some murder."

Yeah, the gray area/middle of the road thing doesn't work here.

First a state does not have to kill people to exist, its only in your little confused world, that it is a necessary property of a state.


Im not against murder/killing people in general, im against the state murdering its OWN citizens.

Im pro-self-survival, and im okay killing for it, or joining a larger group of people(a state) to ensure my survival.

Libertards/NAP people are also not against murder, they will also do it in self defense. Else they would not be NAP, they would be pacifists.
Libertards are pro-murder.

[Spendulus]

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

Libertard - "You are either against murder, or you are pro-murder!"

Kokjo - "I'm against murder, but I'm for some murder."

Yeah, the gray area/middle of the road thing doesn't work here.

First a state does not have to kill people to exist, its only in your little confused world, that it is a necessary property of a state.


Im not against murder/killing people in general, im against the state murdering its OWN citizens.

Im pro-self-survival, and im okay killing for it, or joining a larger group of people(a state) to ensure my survival.

Libertards/NAP people are also not against murder, they will also do it in self defense. Else they would not be NAP, they would be pacifists.
Libertards are pro-murder.

Now that's one collection of statements which has no meaning either wholely or in part, and when coupled with no purpose, constitutes discussion with no meaning or purpose, which is something of an accomplishment, when addressing concepts that have both, in the eyes and words of others.

[kokjo]

Now that's one collection of statements which has no meaning either wholely or in part, and when coupled with no purpose, constitutes discussion with no meaning or purpose, which is something of an accomplishment, when addressing concepts that have both, in the eyes and words of others.

Thank you for confirming your lack of intelligence.

[TheButterZone]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Self-defense is never murder.

[kokjo]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Self-defense is never murder.

Exactly: self-defense is never murder. Self-defense for a group of people is not murder then.

you choose, either we are both pro-murders or we are pro-self-defence-"murders". any arguments you supply that NAP people are not murders, can and will be used against you, with NAP replaced with democracy(no, im not going to do mindless search and replace, but you get the idea).

[TheButterZone]

"Self-defense for a group of people"?

WTF are you talking about? An innocent pilot shooting a terrorist trying to commandeer his plane to kill the passengers and people on the ground?

The pilot's act is a lawful killing, and not murder, not an act of aggression, only defense of innocent life. Stop redefining murder to make some convoluted point.

[Rassah]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Self-defense is never murder.

Exactly: self-defense is never murder. Self-defense for a group of people is not murder then.

you choose, either we are both pro-murders or we are pro-self-defence-"murders". any arguments you supply that NAP people are not murders, can and will be used against you, with NAP replaced with democracy(no, im not going to do mindless search and replace, but you get the idea).

The difference that you seem to be missing is a NAP person will ONLY kill when someone is actually infringing on their life or property, while a democracy-type (including the "libertards" you are talking about) will kill when someone doesn't do what they tell them to do, even if they are doing it on their own property and are not harming anyone else. In short

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

(Property could be actual land, or my possessions, or even my personal freedoms)

[FirstAscent]

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

Hmmm...

Typical democracy: Someone steps on my land, I defend myself
NAP: He with the most guns wins

[FirstAscent]

"Self-defense for a group of people"?

WTF are you talking about? An innocent pilot shooting a terrorist trying to commandeer his plane to kill the passengers and people on the ground?

The pilot's act is a lawful killing, and not murder, not an act of aggression, only defense of innocent life. Stop redefining murder to make some convoluted point.

Who judges these cases?

[hawkeye]

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

Hmmm...

Typical democracy: Someone steps on my land, I defend myself
NAP: He with the most guns wins

In a typical democracy the one with the most guns (govt and by extension it's cronies) are the big winners as far as I can see.  If you are friendly with (or buy off) politicians you are a winner.

[FirstAscent]

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

Hmmm...

Typical democracy: Someone steps on my land, I defend myself
NAP: He with the most guns wins

In a typical democracy the one with the most guns (govt and by extension it's cronies) are the big winners as far as I can see.  If you are friendly with (or buy off) politicians you are a winner.

Please answer the question posed in my last post.

[kokjo]

well maybe i have a lower threshold for when killing people is acceptable. live with it.

[macsai]

maybe i'll get one?