It just gets better and better for gun owners

[JimC]

What's with this "gub" shit? Surely we don't have to sink to that level, do we??

It wasn't me; it must have been a mod with an evil, twisted sense of humour...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

What's with this "gub" shit? Surely we don't have to sink to that level, do we??

It wasn't me; it must have been a mod with an evil, twisted sense of humour...

All I am saying is that DP was back the other day. He can be a... bad influence.

[Seth]

Just because it's fundamental doesn't mean it cannot be regulated or suspended based on your inability to exercise it in a peaceable and responsible manner.

It's not fundamental then, is it?

Of course it is.

"Fundamental" means that neither you nor the collective (government) shall deny me the reasonable

Oh, "reasonable". That makes it so much more clear then. So depending on one's ideology (or lack thereof) "reasonable" will mean different things to different people. Your objective rights are getting less and less objective by the hour.

Don't be a dunce. I said "fundamental" not "objective." You're making up strawmen again.

No I'm not. You fucking say it right below here. You've claimed your bollocks natural rights are objective for fucking years now. Twit.

Well, let's say they are "objective." All that means is that they are based in and derived from objective natural behavior rather than being made of whole cloth by the mind of man.

As I said, in an organized society (as opposed to ferae naturae one's exercise of one's rights may have impacts on others and their exercise of their rights. The Law of the Jungle arbiter is pure force. But the laws of a society may take other approaches at resolving disputes over the exercise of rights, creating a hierarchy of rights, with some being more important and therefore more carefully protected than others.

Courts, lawyers and prisons are merely more sophisticated iterations of the Law of the Jungle.

It's fundamental because it derives from my organic right to life, which derives from the entirely objective and natural First Organic Law

My right to shoot someone is not as fundamental as my right to be armed. Merely carrying a gub harms no one and infringes on no other person's rights, any more than carrying a purse or wearing a hat does. My right to shoot someone is quite narrow in fact and extends only to shooting people who, in my reasonable belief, have placed my life or the life of another in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and I reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force will be inadequate to prevent that harm.

FFS, are you incapable of sticking to the point at hand? The question is why should someone be refused your allegedly objective right to own a gun for defense, just because they are considered extremely mentally ill? Blathering on about your right to shoot this or that person is irrelevant.

Because the alternative is simply to apply the Law of the Jungle and kill the person to eliminate the threat to others. We choose to be more sophisticated in how we deal with dangerous persons and apply reason and logic to resolving conflicts in the exercise of rights.

You seem totally incapable of understanding the most basic of points. The point is - a person with Ebola HASN'T HARMED ANYONE YET, just by being infected with Ebola. Under your bollocks beliefs, they should be free to exercise their right to free movement and association up until the point that they actually export some harm. THEN they have infringed on the rights of others, and THEN they can supposedly be stripped of their "fundamental" and "objective" rights.

That's quite right. An individual with Ebola may go about his or her business in a manner that does not spread, or threaten to spread the virus to others. Of course a virus may be spread more or less easily, which constrains the sort of activities that an infected person may take in order to avoid exporting harm. If you threaten to hit me in the head with a baseball bat, I don't need to wait until you have actually exported that harm before acting in self defense. Your imminent threat to do so is enough to trigger my right to prevent you from actually harming me. As the old saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." But that obviously means that I'm under no compulsion to let you actually hit me before I do something to prevent you from doing so.

You're just trying to pettifog your way out of admitting defeat.

[Seth]

You can bluster and fume all you like, Seth, but every gun connected thread is going to the Gun Club sub-forum where people can more easily ignore them if they wish.

Thanks for giving me permission, not that I need it. I just choose to do it because those who sequester posts so that the tiny minded wipers of other people's bottoms don't have to scroll past something they find disturbs their Wa are fuckwits, and I choose to identify them as such.

[Hermit]

Testing: gun

Edit: No filter, or at least if there ever was one about "gun", there is none now.

[pErvinalia]

Just because it's fundamental doesn't mean it cannot be regulated or suspended based on your inability to exercise it in a peaceable and responsible manner.

It's not fundamental then, is it?

Of course it is.

"Fundamental" means that neither you nor the collective (government) shall deny me the reasonable

Oh, "reasonable". That makes it so much more clear then. So depending on one's ideology (or lack thereof) "reasonable" will mean different things to different people. Your objective rights are getting less and less objective by the hour.

Don't be a dunce. I said "fundamental" not "objective." You're making up strawmen again.

No I'm not. You fucking say it right below here. You've claimed your bollocks natural rights are objective for fucking years now. Twit.

Well, let's say they are "objective." All that means is that they are based in and derived from objective natural behavior rather than being made of whole cloth by the mind of man.

As I said, in an organized society (as opposed to ferae naturae one's exercise of one's rights may have impacts on others and their exercise of their rights. The Law of the Jungle arbiter is pure force. But the laws of a society may take other approaches at resolving disputes over the exercise of rights, creating a hierarchy of rights, with some being more important and therefore more carefully protected than others.

Courts, lawyers and prisons are merely more sophisticated iterations of the Law of the Jungle.

Remember, I don't have a problem with society dictating what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. It's your alleged libertarian principles which seem at odds with that.

My right to shoot someone is not as fundamental as my right to be armed. Merely carrying a gub harms no one and infringes on no other person's rights, any more than carrying a purse or wearing a hat does. My right to shoot someone is quite narrow in fact and extends only to shooting people who, in my reasonable belief, have placed my life or the life of another in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and I reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force will be inadequate to prevent that harm.

FFS, are you incapable of sticking to the point at hand? The question is why should someone be refused your allegedly objective right to own a gub for defense, just because they are considered extremely mentally ill? Blathering on about your right to shoot this or that person is irrelevant.

Because the alternative is simply to apply the Law of the Jungle and kill the person to eliminate the threat to others.

What threat? And even if they had "threatened" someone, they still haven't exported harm. You've made it quite clear in the past that you think words don't have the power to harm people without the "harmed" person allowing it. Everyone of your arguments is inconsistent. This is the problem you face trying to apply a different ideology (libertarianism) to the ideology that you follow (rank selfishness).

We choose to be more sophisticated in how we deal with dangerous persons and apply reason and logic to resolving conflicts in the exercise of rights.

Sophistication? Sounds like gubment interference to me.

You seem totally incapable of understanding the most basic of points. The point is - a person with Ebola HASN'T HARMED ANYONE YET, just by being infected with Ebola. Under your bollocks beliefs, they should be free to exercise their right to free movement and association up until the point that they actually export some harm. THEN they have infringed on the rights of others, and THEN they can supposedly be stripped of their "fundamental" and "objective" rights.

That's quite right. An individual with Ebola may go about his or her business in a manner that does not spread, or threaten to spread the virus to others.

Once again, this is totally inconsistent with what you've said about this issue in the past. You've advocated the mandatory quarantining of anyone flying in from west Africa. So which is it?

You're just trying to pettifog your way out of admitting defeat.

Huh?! As usual, you've presented a logically inconsistent/incoherent argument. There is literally no way you could defeat my points with the dog's breakfast that you present.

[pErvinalia]

Testing: gub

Edit: No filter, or at least if there ever was one about "gub", there is none now.

What you talking about, Willis?

[JimC]

Testing: gub

Edit: No filter, or at least if there ever was one about "gub", there is none now.

What you talking about, Willis?

I think Hermit was attempting to be ironic...

[Blind groper]

When it comes to achieving the greatest level of welfare for the greatest number of people, then central government legislation and policing is vital. The Libertarian approach is quite similar to anarchy. Too much freedom from interferance by central government also results in individuals doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole. One of those nasty outcomes is a high murder rate.

Anthropologists have shown that primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, with no strong central authority, have a terribly high death rate by violence among males (and a shockingly high rate of rape for females). Some Amazon tribes, for example, have been found to lose up to 20% of their males in male on male violence.

When the authority of the central government rises, that level of murder falls. Before William the Conqueror invaded England, the murder rate was estimated to be 100 to 300 killings per 100,000 people per year. Within a couple centuries, under strong Norman kings, it dropped to below 100. Today, with a strong central government, and a competent police force, the murder rate in Britain is 1.2 per 100,000 people per year.

The point is that individual freedom, without a strong central government maintaining a high level of control, the level of violence rises. If you want maximum liberty, you pay the price through lack of security and a high death toll.

Against this background, the idea that Seth promotes, of having a "right" to carry weapons, looks a bit sick. That "right" leads to the current situation where 1 in 50 Americans receives a bullet through some part of their body once in their lifetime, and 1 in 150 dies from that cause.

Standing up for the "right" to bear arms, is also standing up for a high murder rate.

[Collector1337]

When it comes to achieving the greatest level of welfare for the greatest number of people, then central government legislation and policing is vital. The Libertarian approach is quite similar to anarchy. Too much freedom from interferance by central government also results in individuals doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole. One of those nasty outcomes is a high murder rate.

Collectivist garbage.

Essentially equating Libertarianism with anarchy. Black and white thinking, bullshit.

If you want maximum liberty, you pay the price through lack of security and a high death toll.

Fine with me. Assuming I believe this statement, which I don't.

I much prefer to live in a society that rewards personal responsibility, not one that rewards dependence and irresponsibility.

The kind of society blind groper and those like him want will end up devolving society and we'll be rewarded with a society similar to the one in the movie Idiocracy.

[Warren Dew]

Anthropologists have shown that primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, with no strong central authority, have a terribly high death rate by violence among males (and a shockingly high rate of rape for females). Some Amazon tribes, for example, have been found to lose up to 20% of their males in male on male violence.

The careful ones don't classify it as "murder" rather than "warfare", though. When your polities are only a dozen people, the proportion of border to population is far higher, and thus deaths from warfare are also much higher.

When the authority of the central government rises, that level of murder falls. Before William the Conqueror invaded England, the murder rate was estimated to be 100 to 300 killings per 100,000 people per year. Within a couple centuries, under strong Norman kings, it dropped to below 100. Today, with a strong central government, and a competent police force, the murder rate in Britain is 1.2 per 100,000 people per year.

Again a result of unification into a large polity, and not an issue of strength of the central government relative to the people.

[piscator]

When it comes to achieving the greatest level of welfare for the greatest number of people, then central government legislation and policing is vital. The Libertarian approach is quite similar to anarchy. Too much freedom from interferance by central government also results in individuals doing things that are detrimental to society as a whole. One of those nasty outcomes is a high murder rate.

Collectivist garbage.

Essentially equating Libertarianism with anarchy. Black and white thinking, bullshit.

BG posts from New Zealand, so when he says, "...Central government legislation and policing...", he's thinking something perhaps the scale of Miami-Dade combined sheriff's office or the Cleveland City Council.

If you want maximum liberty, you pay the price through lack of security and a high death toll.

Fine with me. Assuming I believe this statement, which I don't.

I much prefer to live in a society that rewards personal responsibility, not one that rewards dependence and irresponsibility.

The kind of society blind groper and those like him want will end up devolving society and we'll be rewarded with a society similar to the one in the movie Idiocracy.

Good point.

[pErvinalia]

It's not really. It's the same black and white thinking that he accuses BG of. It's the usual conservative false dichotomy. Either total freedom (actually, a level that agrees with the particular conservative) or you get failure of society through eventual total dependence. Same as Seth's idiotic claim that there are only two types of people, Libertarians or Marxists useful idiots (with a spattering of actual Marxists in amongst them).

[JimC]

It's not really. It's the same black and white thinking that he accuses BG of. It's the usual conservative false dichotomy. Either total freedom (actually, a level that agrees with the particular conservative) or you get failure of society through eventual total dependence. Same as Seth's idiotic claim that there are only two types of people, Libertarians or Marxists useful idiots (with a spattering of actual Marxists in amongst them).

Yes, it's exactly that. I rather suspect that BG (and certainly MrJonno, for example) are more prepared to put up with a higher level of government control than I am, but all functioning societies require some curtailing of individual freedom to allow for various types of common good.

The less extreme versions of libertarianism serve a useful purpose of questioning whether certain government controls are really needed, particularly in areas of personal freedom that do not impinge on others, such as sexual, lifestyle or drug matters. The real point that any given democratic society ought to be able to find some form of reasonable balance between personal freedom and government controls, via both free political debate, and, at the end of the day,via the ballot box.

[Collector1337]

It's not really. It's the same black and white thinking that he accuses BG of.

Wrong.

It's the usual conservative false dichotomy.

Nope.

Either total freedom (actually, a level that agrees with the particular conservative)

I don't remember saying anything about "total freedom."

Being in favor of freedom doesn't make you a "conservative." Freedom having to do with firearms, yes obviously, but that's not "total freedom" by any means. Since you like to talk about nukes, when have I ever advocated for total freedom including nuke ownership? I think you would find that I favor freedom on many subjects that a "conservative" never would.

or you get failure of society through eventual total dependence.

There are many things that enable this, not just firearm laws.

However for my, and my family's safety it's something that's a high priority and waiting for the cops to show up is simply just not good enough.

There are so many firearm laws it's ridiculous. So, as it stands currently, it is definitely not black and white.