How Many Libertarians Out There?

In response to your deregulation comments:

That also is funny. Had you actually had any vestment or conviction in libertarianism you would have been barking long before this. Decades ago, when captain Reagan put a crack in the regulatory damn, eventually ending up with the repeal of Glass Steagall in 99 (Clinton to blame there, along with Greenspan). That repeal caused derivatives to be viable financial options. Complex assets like that, who are only in existence due to the repeal of Glass Steagall, are the reason for these ridiculous specified regulations which you see so many of. It is just trying to plug the millions of finger holes in the dam. Regulation = fair practices = more stable economic growth, that doesn't easily collapse. Bottom line.

I don't bear any accountability whatsoever. Ive paid my taxes, never drawn unemployment, never worked for the Government except the military and never borrowed a penny from anyone. I own a home and 2 cars and support a family of six. How many are you supporting?

Hudsonvalley82 said:

In response to your deregulation comments:

That also is funny. Had you actually had any vestment or conviction in libertarianism you would have been barking long before this. Decades ago, when captain Reagan put a crack in the regulatory damn, eventually ending up with the repeal of Glass Steagall in 99 (Clinton to blame there, along with Greenspan). That repeal caused derivatives to be viable financial options. Complex assets like that, who are only in existence due to the repeal of Glass Steagall, are the reason for these ridiculous specified regulations which you see so many of. It is just trying to plug the millions of finger holes in the dam. Regulation = fair practices = more stable economic growth, that doesn't easily collapse. Bottom line.

Click to expand...

I was bitching about it in 1971, how about you? Beat you too it i'm sure. Hypocrite much? We already have lots and lots of regulations that would have seen to this, but you see the real problem is the people who regulate do NOTHING to the people who blatently perpetrate fraud. Its the regulators, its government that did this, sure the repeal of glass steagel enabled all this monopoly money to be backed by mere promises on paper which in turn is backed by more monopoly paper. The derivatives market is 50 times world GDP, were dooooooooooomed!!

NoDrama said:

I have 11 years of Military service, 8 of those in the USMC, I have been in multiple combat areas and wars. I know for a fact that 1 man with a gun can literally destroy an army. You think they will drop millions of dollars of ordinance to kill 1 person , but you never spent a second in the Military because that is NOT how they operate. Take it from an expert, guns will save your life. I would rather have the means to defend myself than to be weaponless and at the mercy of anyone else who has a weapon. If your goal in life is just to lay down and let them run over you why not just go in the back yard now and off yourself? I mean if life isn't worth fighting for anyway, right?

Click to expand...

I am wondering what example you can give of one man that took out an army, besides maybe Rambo. LOL. Your years of service are appreciated, but your ability to follow orders does not make you Superman. If one man could truly take out an army, we would only need a few soldiers. And I am not saying that the military will drop all of the weapons on one man, but that your little peashooter will not intimidate, or change anything if they are against what you are doing......oh, and please give that example of the one man army. I would love to hear about it.........stop being silly otherwise, and just admit you cannot fight the military if they choose to go against you.

hazorazo said:

I am wondering what example you can give of one man that took out an army, besides maybe Rambo. LOL. Your years of service are appreciated, but your ability to follow orders does not make you Superman. If one man could truly take out an army, we would only need a few soldiers. And I am not saying that the military will drop all of the weapons on one man, but that your little peashooter will not intimidate, or change anything if they are against what you are doing......oh, and please give that example of the one man army. I would love to hear about it.........stop being silly otherwise, and just admit you cannot fight the military if they choose to go against you.

Click to expand...

Never heard of a sniper huh? Lets see if I can find a good sniper who has killed an army, umm lets go back to Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock. 93 CONFIRMED kills,216 UNCONFIRMED. Total 315 people killed by a single person. There ya go, one man killed an Army.

BTW I don't think I ever said that I own guns so that I can Fight the Military. I own guns so i can kill the Zombies when they come. You will be eaten by the zombies because you will have no way to defend yourself from the horde. My family is important to me, I want them to live.

NoDrama said:

Never heard of a sniper huh? Lets see if I can find a good sniper who has killed an army, umm lets go back to Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock. 93 CONFIRMED kills,216 UNCONFIRMED. Total 315 people killed by a single person. There ya go, one man killed an Army.

BTW I don't think I ever said that I own guns so that I can Fight the Military. I own guns so i can kill the Zombies when they come. You will be eaten by the zombies because you will have no way to defend yourself from the horde. My family is important to me, I want them to live.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to agree with this... The guns are for the zombies.

Anyone who thinks they can win a gunfight with the police or the military (as a single individual) is insane or worse.

You should tell that to all the dead cops

Here you go again, one extreme example used for a blanket statement. Cops dies all the time. Look at what just happened in that Ohio trailer park.

NoDrama said:

Never heard of a sniper huh? Lets see if I can find a good sniper who has killed an army, umm lets go back to Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock. 93 CONFIRMED kills,216 UNCONFIRMED. Total 315 people killed by a single person. There ya go, one man killed an Army.

BTW I don't think I ever said that I own guns so that I can Fight the Military. I own guns so i can kill the Zombies when they come. You will be eaten by the zombies because you will have no way to defend yourself from the horde. My family is important to me, I want them to live.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

Never heard of a sniper huh? Lets see if I can find a good sniper who has killed an army, umm lets go back to Vietnam, Carlos Hathcock. 93 CONFIRMED kills,216 UNCONFIRMED. Total 315 people killed by a single person. There ya go, one man killed an Army.

BTW I don't think I ever said that I own guns so that I can Fight the Military. I own guns so i can kill the Zombies when they come. You will be eaten by the zombies because you will have no way to defend yourself from the horde. My family is important to me, I want them to live.

Click to expand...

I knew you were going to come up with a sniper story....hahaha. 93 confirmed kills makes an army now. And did anyone notice that he had to go back 40 years to Vietnam to get any example that had 93 confirmed kills. Even if you counted the others for the grand total, I think you are getting a little desperate. And last time I checked, the U.S. military had over 315 people in it.

Now, for the Zombies comment, I am just going to assume this is you admitting you were involved in an argument that you had no chance of winning. Just like a sniper vs the American Military.

So remember, do not try to bullshit people that you NEED your guns to fight off the military if it went against you. You just want it to get your rocks off and go shooting cans and shit. And that is ok with me, as long as you know what you are doing, pick up after yourself, and make sure your guns are locked up when not in use.

Now, for the Zombies comment, I am just going to assume this is you admitting you were involved in an argument that you had no chance of winning. Just like a sniper vs the American Military.

So remember, do not try to bullshit people that you NEED your guns to fight off the military if it went against you.

Click to expand...

For the dense in the crowd...

He was not initially saying that one man would go against an army. He meant that the citizens will rise up in revolt and collectively we could defeat an army. Yes, the army may be better armed and trained but they are Americans too and I think ultimately would have alot of problems fighting against American citizens in unfied combat.

The guns held by the civilians keep the government in check...

If Americans have trouble killing Americans, then why are you saying that the publics firearms keep the government in check??
Either you are wrong on one or both of those statements, and depending on which one you pick, that proves my statement that there are populations within this country that have guns strictly due to the fact that they think the government is after them, and that guns aren't necessary for protection from their fellow citizens.

NLXSK1 said:

For the dense in the crowd...

He was not initially saying that one man would go against an army. He meant that the citizens will rise up in revolt and collectively we could defeat an army. Yes, the army may be better armed and trained but they are Americans too and I think ultimately would have alot of problems fighting against American citizens in unfied combat.

The guns held by the civilians keep the government in check...

Click to expand...

Hudsonvalley82 said:

If Americans have trouble killing Americans, then why are you saying that the publics firearms keep the government in check??
Either you are wrong on one or both of those statements, and depending on which one you pick, that proves my statement that there are populations within this country that have guns strictly due to the fact that they think the government is after them, and that guns aren't necessary for protection from their fellow citizens.

Click to expand...

I said the guns keep the GOVERNMENT in check because Americans would have trouble killing Americans.

If something seems confusing to you it is useful to re-read it.

Now, unless you expect the congress to be the ones with the guns then you would realize that the military has the guns and the government makes the laws. Seems pretty clear to me.

No no no your missing it. If americans would have trouble killing americans, guns play into the equation 0%. Your argument postulates that Americans in fact would kill Americans, using guns, and that for some reason gun ownership plays a factor into that not happening. Without that assumption your statement is self destructive.

Your saying that no ones going to kill anyone and then you say: but someone is, and a gun will stop it. I don't follow, you have to concede something here.

Hudsonvalley82 said:

No no no your missing it. If americans would have trouble killing americans, guns play into the equation 0%. Your argument postulates that Americans in fact would kill Americans, using guns, and that for some reason gun ownership plays a factor into that not happening. Without that assumption your statement is self destructive.

Click to expand...

No, my argument is that the military would not operate as a unified force if used to attack Americans.

But thanks for changing my argument to one you think you could win.... LOL!!

Got me confused as well..How does guns keep the government in check ?????

londonfog said:

Got me confused as well..How does guns keep the government in check ?????

Click to expand...

Because if the government enacted legislation unpopular enough, the people would revolt.

If that happened, BECAUSE THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED, the police force would not be enough to stop them.

Therefore they would have to call in the military.

Now, can you envision a situation where the military was called against the civilians?

It is the reason for the 2nd amendment.

dude thats a stretch in saying guns control government...I would like to think that the voters booth controls the government...and if you really think that for one minute that this government would not squash a revolt you are seriously misinformed...Waco should give you some ideas...or maybe Rodney King should ring a bell...Hell we send National guards to different States just for the reason of having to shoot someone you know as to oppose to shooting some people you don't.

Well, waco is a good enough example to quell all those statements, Oklahoma city? the whole nine yards, everyone of those examples spurred from paranoia mongering like yours. If you jump into the kind of thinking enough, eventually you not only become a threat to Law enforcement, but also general citizens. Thats why most American's call people like you crack pots and not patriots. A real patriot defends his country, and doesn't attack it, whether you agree or not. It's called civil duty, and it is the shining star of our country. Country first ring a bell? Whats good for the general population may not be what you had in mind. Then there are selfish ingrates as yourself that are convinced that you are the very zenith of the universe, and every decision on a national scale should run by you first for approval or its tyranny. You make up straw men to attack, that is what you have been doing throughout this entire thread.

Just like any other libertarian/conservative (as I see no difference in your views at all, especially within the past discourse of this thread) you resort to guns, like someone is taking them away right now. We have one of the most prolific gun industries in the world, and it hasn't changed.

You are in your imagination about the whole citizens revolt thing, military coming in. That is why we differ.
You are enthralled with the many unlikely worlds in the "what if" realm, I put my money on what is probable.
A government vs citizen civil war is extremely improbable, yet here I am wasting another day being sick discussing it.
Lets discuss real things first. Our differences in views on taxation are real, our differences in views on the national debt are real. Citizens revolt is imaginary at best, (a bit dramatic I might add) and a complete waste of time. Go shack up with the folks in Appalachia if you are so convinced. They have been preparing for this for over 100 years.

NLXSK1 said:

Because if the government enacted legislation unpopular enough, the people would revolt.

If that happened, BECAUSE THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED, the police force would not be enough to stop them.

Therefore they would have to call in the military.

Now, can you envision a situation where the military was called against the civilians?

It is the reason for the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

You are a fucking retard...

You keep putting shit up like I said it.

I have a gun in my house to protect me from criminals. It is not my intention to ever get into a gunfight with the police or the military.

My point is and continues to be that the 2nd amendment and CITIZENS (plural) having guns keeps the government afraid of the population.

It's in the constitution and written in many supporting papers published at the time. You should take some time to read it one day...