How Many Libertarians Out There?

Good grief charlie brown...The second amendment was an extension of past British law from 1689. If you recollect, back in the late 1700's there were no supermarkets, a firearm was more of a survival tool than anything else. Food, protection, safety, not paranoia. Now a firearm is strictly for protection and pleasure. Hunting is far from a necessity in a nation of obesity. People like you sit around and try to defend it saying that it was because of protection from the evil government. Now it is for hunting and protection from others with guns. And people like yourself pervert it even more saying it is because the man is after you. Thinking like that makes me not want you to have a gun at all, cuz you strictly don't plant the feet of your decisions in reality.

Your a joke bud...

PS what kind of firearm do you own???

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...

NLXSK1 is sure worried about legislation he disagrees with......and thinks guns will change it.....? We have already shown you that your idea seems pretty far fetched, and you still keep swinging away.

Now, what you need to do is get out there and vote, and if your side does not win that election, follow the constitution and the rules of our society to change the outcome if you can. You suggest that if you do not like the laws, you can simply pull a gun, and the law will be changed.

I say you are incorrect, and the military would simply gas you out of your location, as long as you had no hostages, and then put you in jail. All because of your lack of belief in democracy. Pretty funny stuff, huh!

We would not have to convince the troops that they are going to kill another American. We would simply let them know there is an American that has lost faith in democracy, and has pulled a gun to prove it. Nighty night, NLXSK1.

I think that sums up my stance in a concise, non verbose method.

hazorazo said:

NLXSK1 is sure worried about legislation he disagrees with......and thinks guns will change it.....? We have already shown you that your idea seems pretty far fetched, and you still keep swinging away.

Now, what you need to do is get out there and vote, and if your side does not win that election, follow the constitution and the rules of our society to change the outcome if you can. You suggest that if you do not like the laws, you can simply pull a gun, and the law will be changed.

I say you are incorrect, and the military would simply gas you out of your location, as long as you had no hostages, and then put you in jail. All because of your lack of belief in democracy. Pretty funny stuff, huh!

We would not have to convince the troops that they are going to kill another American. We would simply let them know there is an American that has lost faith in democracy, and has pulled a gun to prove it. Nighty night, NLXSK1.

Click to expand...

NLXSK1 said:

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...

Click to expand...

And his point (and everyone else that has disagreed with you) is that you having a gun does not scare the government at all. It does not keep them in check. The PEOPLE do. YOU need to go read the constitution, and start thinking about this, and not calling him a "fucking retard" because he is destroying you in a debate.

The fact is that no one is scared of your little gun, except your neighbors. And you have this little piece of power you can resort to when your intellect fails you......

Appreciate the support, it has taken all my fatherly tolerance not to resort to name calling, and actually thinking in this thread.

hazorazo said:

And his point (and everyone else that has disagreed with you) is that you having a gun does not scare the government at all. It does not keep them in check. The PEOPLE do. YOU need to go read the constitution, and start thinking about this, and not calling him a "fucking retard" because he is destroying you in a debate.

The fact is that no one is scared of your little gun, except your neighbors. And you have this little piece of power you can resort to when your intellect fails you......

Click to expand...

Hudsonvalley82 said:

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.

Click to expand...

He asked for an example, he was given a true and factual one. Your statement is nothing more than a retaliatory comment made to give others the impression that you are following along with the discussion, but I fear we left you scratching your head back at post #214

Being a Police officer doesn't even break into the top 10 deadliest jobs.


Yeah cops are dieing all the time, just a lot less than farmers and fishermen and garbage collectors are though.

londonfog said:

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

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of the Amendment.
The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

hazorazo said:

I

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.

Click to expand...

Who ever said that? I challenge you to find ANYWHERE where I said I keep guns to fight the military. Go ahead, you have been challenged, only gotta sort thru 6,000+ posts, im sure someone as highly intelligent as you MUST be able to find SOMETHING. But I already know you won't take up the challenge because you and I and everyone else KNOWS that i never made a statement like that. Keep trying to attribute false and BS statements to people who didn't even state them, you've had SMASHING Success so far....

Zombies, do you even have a clue what I'm talking about when I refer to them? Any clue?

hazorazo said:

Now, what you need to do is get out there and vote, and if your side does not win that election, follow the constitution and the rules of our society to change the outcome if you can. You suggest that if you do not like the laws, you can simply pull a gun, and the law will be changed.

Click to expand...

The true colors shine through, just another person who thinks partisan, one vs. the other. Pick your team folks, Dems and Repubs are sworn and mortal enemies.

Being a fisherman in frozen oceans is one thing. Death happens in unsafe conditions, fact of life. None of those people were murdered, or shot to death. None of them died for the safety of their nation and citizens. Its incredible that a person that served in the military can't understand the difference between dying by accident and having their life taken. Troops, firemen, first responders, and cops die for a greater good, all of the occupations above died trying to make money.

Remember 9/11? I didn't see any fisherman sailing inside a burning building? The cops and firemen weren't running in there to grab sacks of cash, they ran in there, pretty much aware that they had a 50/50 of coming out, to save other people. To support the general safety of a population selflessly.

I can't believe you would even try to argue such a point. That is really shallow. Just because some occupation didn't die the most, means that we can disregard the lives that were taken?
Yeah, it sucks to be a fisherman, and a surprising amount of taxi drivers die each year...thats all that chart tells me. It has no bearing on this thread other than that.

I have to apologize, I come from a family of NYPD back east, I am a touch sympathetic to causes of such.


Yeah cops are dieing all the time, just a lot less than farmers and fishermen and garbage collectors are though.[/QUOTE]

Hudsonvalley82 said:

Being a fisherman in frozen oceans is one thing. Death happens in unsafe conditions, fact of life. None of those people were murdered, or shot to death. None of them died for the safety of their nation and citizens. Its incredible that a person that served in the military can't understand the difference between dying by accident and having their life taken. Troops, firemen, first responders, and cops die for a greater good, all of the occupations above died trying to make money.

Remember 9/11? I didn't see any fisherman sailing inside a burning building? The cops and firemen weren't running in there to grab sacks of cash, they ran in there, pretty much aware that they had a 50/50 of coming out, to save other people. To support the general safety of a population selflessly.

I can't believe you would even try to argue such a point. That is really shallow. Just because some occupation didn't die the most, means that we can disregard the lives that were taken?
Yeah, it sucks to be a fisherman, and a surprising amount of taxi drivers die each year...thats all that chart tells me. It has no bearing on this thread other than that.

I have to apologize, I come from a family of NYPD back east, I am a touch sympathetic to causes of such.

Click to expand...

So your point is that Police, firemen and first responders volunteer and do not accept a pay check? Cuz thats what it sounds like to me, like Police don't get that job so they can earn a paycheck or something. They must just do it because they like to be in dangerous situations, no that couldn't be it, lots more dangerous occupations than that out there. They must do it because they like the uniform right? No, why not join the Marines instead, they have kick ass uniforms.

Gosh you know I just can't figure out why a police officer would even want the job. Oh wait let me ask my neighbor who is a policeman, he says he goes to work everyday because the pay him for it, oh well he must be one of the few who are just downright greedy, wanting a paycheck and all. Must be a few officers out there who were getting a paycheck when they died, and my instincts tell me that all of them were.

Know how many police died in the line of fire in 2010? One Hundred sixty ( 160) TOTAL!!! Of those 160, 59 died from gun fire, the others died BY ACCIDENT either from self inflicted gunshot wounds or traffic accident. Now what was that you were saying about accidental death not counting?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40828227/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

NoDrama said:

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of the Amendment.
The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing some common sense to this argument. The BS is getting so thick in this thread I am having trouble breathing...

wow dude, way to dig deep. There are few jobs that request you to give your life in the line of duty. Not accidentally die, give your life. How many jobs require a bullet proof vest?

Look dude, I don't know what you are trying to win by making the death of police officers who are shot to death less important. I'll let you have it though. You have completely proven that dead cops are insignificant as their profession doesn't rank in your top 10.

Your values are pretty screwed up if that is the case...Shit, I would feel bad if your neighbor died and you were here marginalizing his death in the name of making a pointless argument in the first place.

NoDrama said:

So your point is that Police, firemen and first responders volunteer and do not accept a pay check? Cuz thats what it sounds like to me, like Police don't get that job so they can earn a paycheck or something. They must just do it because they like to be in dangerous situations, no that couldn't be it, lots more dangerous occupations than that out there. They must do it becasue they like the uniform right? No, why not join the Marines instead, they have kick ass uniforms.

Gosh you know I just can't figure out why a police officer would even want the job. Oh wait let me ask my neighbor who is a policeman, he says he goes to work everyday because the pay him for it, oh well he must be one of the few who are just downright greedy, wanting a paycheck and all.

Click to expand...

Hudsonvalley82 said:

wow dude, way to dig deep. There are few jobs that request you to give your life in the line of duty. Not accidentally die, give your life. How many jobs require a bullet proof vest?

Look dude, I don't know what you are trying to win by making the death of police officers who are shot to death less important. I'll let you have it though. You have completely proven that dead cops are insignificant as their profession doesn't rank in your top 10.

Your values are pretty screwed up if that is the case...Shit, I would feel bad if your neighbor died and you were here marginalizing his death in the name of making a pointless argument in the first place.

Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hudsonvalley82 again.

Click to expand...

The founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. Why? Look at statements from a majority of them. Look at the times they were in. They had an overly oppressive government, and went to war against it and won. We were part of the British empire in those days. Some people with guns beat the most powerful country on earth.

Rome was the USA of the world for hundreds of years. Rome, (washington DC) was sacked repeatedly. A few of those were by hordes more than an army. If you asked the Romans 50 years before it happened if it could happen you would of been laughed at.

The civil war was a lot of people getting fed up with the federal government and going to war. Are you saying that wasn't close to being a successful rebellion? That was 150 years ago. They were close many times to the north caving in and letting them go.

Look at LA in the 90s when we had the riots. What if well armed militia groups had been involved and it had escalated? They might not have won, but what would of changed?

One man with a pistol started WW1. Do you know who Archduke Ferdinand was? His assassination by some nobody catapulted the world into WW1.

All through history small groups of armed people have fought for their causes and won.

In 1814 we took a little trip.

How about the couple thousand people wearing towels on their heads who are causing us serious issues in the desert? It isn't exactly like we are wiping them out. These are smelly unwashed people living in shacks.

Most of these examples are modern history.


There are about 300 million guns in circulation in the civilian US population. 20-50% of the population own guns. If the government pushed hard enough and even 10k people took up arms, many others would follow and gain courage from the acts. Where as many people on the other spectrum would hide in their beds. How many of the military are rednecks/conservatives? The military is more conservative/libertarian than the general population. It isn't like there are a bunch of hippy dopers in the military.

You might want to seriously consider why they did the second amendment. It was solely to keep the governments in line. Ours and theirs. More people have been killed by their own governments in the last 100 years than any other cause - why should we not be suspect of the government and fearful of its overreach? What government that has been around for any amount of time has not abused its citizens?

I would like to point out that I am not advocating violence or an armed uprising against the government. I am simply making the point that a well armed population keeps the government in check.

Carthoris said:

I am wondering just what percentage of stoners are libertarian. It seems like the party of "shut up and mind your own business". One where you are left alone to control your life. My views of the parties are this:

Republicans: "We want to control your personal lives"

Democrats: "We want to control your money"

Libertarians: "We want you to take care of yourself and mind your own business."

Are people that afraid of freedom? Why don't people think you can control your money and lives on your own? You think you can, right? You probably think your neighbors can't though, don't you?

Why does everyone feel that the Libertarian party is the party of crazy? What is crazy about being free? About being the only one responsible for your own fate? I really think the Demo's and Repub's are so afraid of individual responsibility that they cannot let you control your own lives. The Libertarian party is different in that respect. I understand why Republicans and Democrats are for their individual parties - because they have no better options, but doesn't the libertarian idea incorporate the most important part of everything? Liberty. It is almost wiccan in its teachings "An it harm none, do what ye will." Isn't that really what most of us want? To be left alone to live our lives how we wish to live them? I know that is my fondest wish in life.

The New Hampshire Free State Project is about Libertarians moving to NH to take over the state and change it into a Libertarian paradise. I am seriously considering the move.

Carthoris

Click to expand...

as long as i lived i never ever knew that we was "free" at all. My definition of freedom is when i am able to say no. not to have someone else say no for me. thats a load of bullshit. i dont believe in no political party so i guess that makes me a libertarian. i dont eat the shit politicians try to feed. and specially ever since the patriot act passed when that jackass of bush was around. we pretty much traded our little bit of freedom we had for more safety.

NLXSK1 said:

I would like to point out that I am not advocating violence or an armed uprising against the government. I am simply making the point that a well armed population keeps the government in check.

Click to expand...

and thats the real reason why "they" hate the NRA. I say more power to the NRA. and on a perssonal note i believe every SANE american citizen needs their own protection (weapons) for themselves and their families safety. +rep for seeing a clear pic of why the gov wants no citizen well armed or well informed for that matter...........

NLXSK1 said:

I would like to point out that I am not advocating violence or an armed uprising against the government. I am simply making the point that a well armed population keeps the government in check.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be the time to point out that the Shot Heard 'Round the World was fired because of gun control.

The Redcoats were on their way to Concorde to seize a cache of weapons when they were met by the Minutemen at Lexington Green.

That is why the Second Amendment exists.

bestbuds09 said:

and thats the real reason why "they" hate the NRA. I say more power to the NRA. and on a perssonal note i believe every SANE american citizen needs their own protection (weapons) for themselves and their families safety. +rep for seeing a clear pic of why the gov wants no citizen well armed or well informed for that matter...........

Click to expand...

Better go buy some nukes, some RPG's, mines, some jet fighters, and support aircraft, don't forget some submarines in your navy arsenal. These days, that is what it will take to be some sort of threat to our government as one person. Just having the right to have your musket does not have your government shaking in its boots.

And by the way, none of this started over gun rights. This started with a guy talking about having his guns to fight the oppression that is coming. I told him if the oppression was the U.S. Government, he better get some bigger guns. Long story short, a rifle is not going to scare the government.